reducing carbon emissions housing v3projects.bre.co.uk/pdf_files/reducingcarbonemissions... ·...

Reducing carbon emissions from the UK housing stock

1


L D Shorrock, J Henderson and J I Utley

Housing Centre, BRE Environment


2

Acknowledgements

The work described in this report was supported by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The specific analyses described were funded by Defra’s Global Atmosphere Division under the Climate Change Programme. The analyses have relied on related work on the BREHOMES and BREDEM models. The former is supported by Defra’s Sustainable Energy Policy Division through a contract managed by the Energy Saving Trust. The latter is also supported by Defra’s Sustainable Energy Policy Division. The support of Defra for these activities is gratefully acknowledged.

Some of the data that has been used for the analyses presented in this report has been kindly supplied by the Environmental Change Institute, The Department of Trade and Industry, the Energy Saving Trust and also through Defra’s Market Transformation Programme. The assistance that has been provided in each case is gratefully acknowledged.

The photographs on the cover are reproduced by courtesy of the Energy Saving Trust.

BRE is committed to providing impartial and authoritative information on all aspects of the built environment for clients, designers, contractors, engineers, manufacturers, occupants, etc. We make every effort to ensure the accuracy and quality of information and guidance when it is first published. However, we can take no responsibility for the subsequent use of this information, nor for any errors or omissions it may contain. BRE is the UK’s leading centre of expertise on building and construction, and the prevention and control of fire. Contact BRE for information about its services, or for technical advice, at: BRE, Garston, Watford WD25 9XX Tel: 01923 664000 [email protected] www.bre.co.uk Details of BRE publications are available from: www.brepress.com or IHS ATP (BRE Press) Willoughby Road, Bracknell RG12 8FB Tel: 01344 328038, Fax: 01344 328005 [email protected] Published by BRE Press. Requests to copy any part of this publication should be made to: BRE Press, Garston, Watford WD25 9XX Tel: 01923 664761 [email protected] BR 480 © Copyright BRE 2005 First published 2005. Reprinted 2006 incorporating minor corrections ISBN 1 86081 752 1


3

Contents

Summary 5Part 1 The scope for carbon emission reductions from

the UK housing stock 71.1 Introduction 81.2 Description of the project 8 Overview of method 8 Cost and lifetimes of measures 8 Energy, carbon emission and cost savings 9 Cost-effectiveness calculation method 10 Potentials for each measure 101.3 Findings 111.4 Findings for specific measures 181.5 Conclusions 19 References 19 Appendix A: Tables

20

Part 2 Assessing the effects of domestic sector energy efficiency policies 24

2.1 Introduction 252.2 The effects of grants 25 Update of earlier analyses 25 Loft insulation Cavity wall insulation Condensing boilers The effects of individual schemes 28 The Homes Insulation Scheme and Energy Conservation Programme The Energy Efficiency Standards of Performance and Home Energy

Efficiency Scheme Conclusions on the effectiveness of different types of grant 2.3 Effects of labelling, minimum standards and Building Regulations 34 Introduction to the following analyses 34 Cold appliances 34 Wet appliances 37 Boilers 39 The effect of Building Regulations on existing homes 41 Conclusions on the effectiveness of energy labelling, minimum

standards and Building Regulations 422.4 Energy and carbon savings from energy efficiency policies 42 Loft insulation grants 42 Cavity wall insulation grants 42 Condensing boiler grants 42 Loft insulation, cavity wall insulation and condensing boiler grants

combined and compared 43


4

Savings from energy labelling and minimum standards for

appliances and boilers 45 Methodology for appliances Results for appliances Methodology for boilers Results for boilers Savings from improvements to Building Regulations 47 Methodology Results Conclusions on the savings from grants, energy labelling and

Building Regulations 47 References 49 Appendix B: Tables

50

Part 3 Possible scenarios for future domestic energy use and carbon emissions to 2050 64

3.1 Introduction 653.2 General assumptions 653.3 Step change scenario assumptions 663.4 Scenario descriptions 66 Reference scenario 66 Policy scenario 66 Efficiency scenario 67 Step change 1 scenario 68 Step change 2 scenario 683.5 Results 683.6 Costs and savings of the scenarios 70 Policy scenario 70 Efficiency scenario 70 Step change 1 scenario 72 Step change 2 scenario 72 References 73 Appendix C: Tables 74


5

Summary

This report updates and extends analyses in BRE Report BR435 published in December 20011. It is concerned with the carbon emission reductions that might be possible from the housing stock, addressing this issue from three different, but related, perspectives. Accordingly, the report is in three main parts, each of which is essentially a complete report in its own right, with its own summary, references and appendix containing relevant tables.

Part 1 of the report considers a wide range of energy efficiency measures and for each one assesses the potential carbon savings and their cost-effectiveness. The position that existed in 2001 in respect of each of these measures is examined, as well as looking forward to the likely situation in 2010, 2020 and 2050.

Part 2 focuses on the effectiveness of energy efficiency policies within the domestic sector, using historical data to assess the savings that have been achieved and to compare the effects of the different policies. Due to the differences between the various energy efficiency policies and the analyses that are possible, the discussions in this part of the report are divided into three main sections. These analyses provide evidence that is useful for con-sidering the likely effects and costs of future policies, which is addressed in Part 3.

Part 3 looks at the potential future carbon emissions from the housing stock and considers five separate scenarios. The reference scenario describes what could happen if historical trends were to continue. The policy scenario takes account of the effects of planned energy efficiency policies. The efficiency scenario looks at what could happen if all of the standard energy efficiency measures were to be taken up as rapidly as seems feasible. Two further step change scenarios then examine how we might approach a 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, as recommended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution2 and as adopted as a goal to work towards within the Government’s Energy White paper3.

The results presented in the report emphasise that, although large carbon emission savings are potentially available, they will not necessarily be easy to access and will involve quite large expenditures. In the medium-to-long term they will also require some fundamental changes to both the national energy supply infrastructure and, linked to this, to the individual energy choices that are made by the many millions of ordinary householders.

1 Carbon emission reductions from energy efficiency improvements to the UK housing stock. L D Shorrock, J Henderson, J I Utley and G A Walters. BRE Report BR 435, December 2001. 2 Energy - The changing climate. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Stationery Office, June 2000. 3 Energy White Paper: Our energy future – creating a low carbon economy. DTI. The Stationery Office, February 2003.


6


7

Part 1. The scope for carbon emission reductions from the UK housing stock

SUMMARY This part of the report describes a study to evaluate the carbon emissions saving potential of domestic energy efficiency measures. It considers the potential in 2001 (the latest year for which data is available), and looks ahead to 2010, 2020 and 2050.

Cost-effectiveness analysis is carried out on the energy saving measures considered allowing an estimate to be made of what proportion of the total carbon savings identified can be made at a negative overall cost. Low and high estimates of the capital costs of measures are used to indicate a likely range for the cost-effective carbon saving potential.

The study finds that around 22 MtC/yr* could potentially be saved if the energy efficiency measures identified are applied to all suitable dwellings. However, only between 9 and 17.5 MtC/yr of this could be saved cost-effectively (depending on whether low or high costs are assumed). The remainder could not be justified on the basis of fuel cost savings alone.

The savings potential is predicted to fall to approximately 17.5 and then 13.5 MtC/yr by 2010 and 2020 respectively. In 2010 between 6.5 and 13.5 MtC of the total potential will be cost-effective. In 2020, between 3.5 and 9.5 MtC is indicated as cost-effective.

By 2050 nearly all the potential from today’s insulation measures will have been used up. For this reason, the increased use of renewables was considered. The potential carbon savings from the measures looked at for 2050 is thus estimated to be much higher at 29.5 MtC/yr. However, depending on the cost assumptions used, the analysis indicates a range of 0.2 to 17.5 MtC/yr of this might be cost-effective.

This indicates that it may become more expensive to reduce domestic carbon emissions in the future as the most cost-effective measures reach saturation. Of course, technical innovations and future reductions in the price of renewables could change this.

*Million tonnes of carbon emissions per year


8

1.1 INTRODUCTION The study described in this part of the report looks at the potential carbon emissions savings that could be made in the housing stock, identifying which energy efficiency measures are likely to be cost-effective. The savings thus estimated are based on a static analysis which assumes that the measures could be implemented immediately. In reality, it takes time to implement energy efficiency measures and in that time other influencing factors are likely to change and so affect the savings that are made. Analyses that take account of these dynamic effects are described in Part 3 of this report which deals with possible scenarios for future carbon emissions from the housing stock.

Energy efficiency is expected to provide more than half of the greenhouse gas emission reduc-tions in the UK government’s current Climate Change Strategy and its importance is highlighted in the Energy White paper. For forward planning it is important to know what savings we can realistically expect from future strategies and how cost-effectively these savings might be achieved. It is likely we will have to make important choices between which methods to use to reduce our carbon emissions to meet increasingly tough targets. Evaluation of the potential savings and the cost-effectiveness of possible ways to achieve these are therefore required to make sure we obtain the biggest greenhouse gas emission reductions for the least cost.

This study evaluates the potential national carbon emissions savings from a number of energy efficiency measures that are applicable to the UK’s housing stock for the years 2001, 2010, 2020, 2050, indicating what proportion of the overall saving is cost-effective for each year. It evaluates which measures offer the biggest potential savings and which offer the biggest savings per pound spent.

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Overview of method

Information was collated on the costs and lifetimes of domestic energy efficiency measures and the amount of energy saved by each was calculated using BREDEM-12 (1). Using suitable carbon intensity factors for fuels, energy savings were converted to carbon emission savings. Similarly, using fuel cost factors, the cost saving for each measure was calculated. Using this information, cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out by calculating net annual cost. For each measure examined it was also estimated what number of dwellings in the UK housing stock it could reasonably be applied to, enabling an estimate to be made of the potential national carbon saving. By adding up the potentials for each energy efficiency measure, the total potential national saving was estimated. By adding up only the potentials of the measures which had a negative net annual cost, the cost-effective potential national saving was estimated.

Estimates of the potential savings in future years (2010, 2020 and 2050) were made by pro-jecting uptake rates of energy efficiency measures forward (using the information that under-lies the scenarios described in Part 3 of this report). Since by 2050 the potential savings from most fabric insulation measures is predicted to have fallen close to zero (as they near satura-tion), the possible savings for a different set of measures was considered for 2050, including more renewables.

The following sections describe the work in more detail.

Cost and lifetimes of insulation measures

Since the costs of insulation measures can vary widely depending on circumstances (e.g. availability of grants), a low and high set of costs were used to give a feel for the range of cost-effectiveness possibilities which exist. This highlights the fact that there is always an element of uncertainty when looking at what is cost-effective for a large group of dwellings, because of the variety of circumstances a single figure must encapsulate. The value and a description of each cost used are given in Table 1. Generally the low costs represent the gross cost less any grant available, or a marginal cost where it is assumed that work is needed anyway and it might make sense to make a more energy efficient upgrade. Where applicable, these are DIY costs. The high costs mainly represent the typical purchase price of the measure assuming no grants are available. They are usually not marginal costs (assuming the measure is installed not at a time when work was needed anyway). All costs quoted represent the value for a typical 3 bedroom semi-detached house. In a few cases the high and low costs were taken to be identical because there was no basis on which to make a distinction.


9

Table 1. Capital cost assumptions

Capital cost (£)Measure Low High

Description

Loft insulation 138 273 DIY and installer cost

Cavity wall insulation 300 325 Grant aided and typical cost

Solid wall insulation 1309 3272 Marginal and full cost

Low-e double glazing 0 4000 Marginal and approximate full cost

Draught proofing 85 110 DIY and installer cost

Cylinder insulation 8 20 Low and high DIY cost

Condensing boiler 100 300 Low and high marginal cost

Better controls 125 250 Low and high installer cost

EE lighting 85 200 Low and high purchase cost (for 17 lamps)

EE appliances 0 114 Range of marginal costs covering all appliances considered

Solar water 1650 2475 Grant aided and typical costs

PV 6900 13300 Grant aided and typical costs

Floor insulation 50 1000 Marginal and full cost

Energy, carbon emission and cost savings

Energy savings for insulation and heating measures were calculated using BREDEM to model BRE’s standard semi-detached dwelling, which is close to the average for the UK housing stock. This dwelling was assumed to have gas central heating with a typical heating regime. To avoid double counting it was assumed that insulation had already been improved when calculating savings for heating improvements. It is possible of course that heating upgrades could be made before insulation is installed, in which case the savings from the heating improvement would be higher and those from the insulation lower. However, it is generally recommended that insulation upgrades be made before heating upgrades so the heating output can be sized accordingly.

It was assumed that 30% of savings from heating-related measures would be taken in improved comfort instead of energy savings. This value is consistent with that used in other studies, but a definitive study on comfort factors would be useful to reduce the uncertainty in this during future work.

Appliance savings were determined from DECADE data (2), by comparing the ‘reference case’ scenario unit energy consumption for 2001 to the 2020 ‘scenario 1’. Appropriate ‘heat replacement effect’ factors from a recent Market Transformation Programme study (3) were applied to these savings to take account of the reduction in space heating gains from the more efficient appliances.

Carbon emission factors for electricity were based on DTI estimates for 2001, 2010 and 2020. For 2050, it was assumed that carbon free sources (e.g. renewables and nuclear) will make up about 45% of electricity production by extrapolating the current trends, but that the remaining electricity fuel mix stays the same as 2020. This gives a carbon intensity figure for 2050 about 30% lower than in 2020 and about 50% lower than in 2000. The carbon intensity for gas, oil and biomass were taken from SAP 2001 (4) and assumed not to change in future years. Table 2 contains the carbon factors used.

Fuel costs were taken from SAP 2001 (4). They were assumed not to change in future years since this work aims to evaluate cost-effectiveness in present-day terms. DTI estimates of future fuel prices up to 2020 showed that prices are not expected to change greatly in real terms over this period. However, it is worth bearing in mind that should they change markedly, the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency measures will be affected.


10

Table 2. Fuel carbon intensities

Carbon intensity of fuel (kgC/GJ) Year

Electricity Gas Oil Biomass

2001 36.8 14.7 20.5 1.9

2010 33.0 14.7 20.5 1.9

2020 27.2 14.7 20.5 1.9

2050 19.2 14.7 20.5 1.9

Cost-effectiveness calculation method

Several methods exist for estimating cost-effectiveness. For this study the indicator of cost-effectiveness used is net annual cost (NAC), which has the advantage of being easy to understand. A negative NAC indicates that a measure is cost-effective, whilst a positive one indicates it is not. The degree to which the answer is positive or negative indicates the degree to which something is cost-effective. A large negative number indicates a highly cost-effective measure while a small positive number indicates something that is marginally not cost-effective.

NAC is defined as follows:

NAC = EAC – S

Where S is the annual saving (£/year) due to the measure and EAC is the equivalent annual cost given by:

nr)(11CrEAC −+−

=

Where C is the capital cost of the measure (£), r is the discount rate (%) and n is the lifetime of the measure over which the annual cost saving is supplied (years).

A discount rate of 3.5% was assumed for all calculations in this study, in line with treasury guidance (5). The social cost of carbon has not been included. Clearly, its inclusion would tend to make the measures more cost effective, although calculations that have included it indicate that it actually makes relatively little difference in most cases. The only notable exception to this was for biomass boilers (which offer large carbon savings but hardly any direct saving from reduced fuel costs).

As it is of particular relevance to this work, the NAC was divided by the annual carbon saving to give the net annual cost per tonne of carbon saved.

Cost-effectiveness was assessed for each measure for each of the four years considered using both low and high estimates of capital cost, resulting in eight sets of primary results.

Potentials for each measure

In order to estimate the total carbon savings deliverable through domestic energy efficiency measures for the whole housing stock, it was necessary to estimate the number of homes each measure could be applied to. The potential number that most heating and insulation measures could be applied to in 2001 was based on figures from the Domestic Energy Fact File (6). Other sources of data (such as EHCS and DECADE) were consulted for certain measures. From two of the principal sources, 2001 was the most recent year for which reliable figures were available, hence it was chosen as the base year.

In most cases the potential was taken to be the number of homes that could have a measure but currently lack it. For a few cases other factors which affect how many dwellings can realistically have a measure applied are taken into account. For example, it is assumed that only 95% of cavity walls can be insulated because of the risk of rain penetration in exposed regions. The remaining 5% are assumed to be amenable to the techniques applied to insulate solid walls and have been included as part of the solid wall insulation potential. A description of what each potential represents is given in Table 3.


11

Table 3. Potential numbers of homes suitable for energy efficiency measures

Measure Potential number of homes in 2001

(000’s) Description

Loft insulation Various Potentials at a number of starting thicknesses were evaluated individually (see Tables A1 to A4)

Cavity wall insulation 8540 Total number of cavity walled dwellings less 5%, and less

those already insulated

Solid wall insulation 9080 Total number of solid walled dwellings plus 5% of cavity

walled dwellings, and less those already insulated

Low-e double glazing 10746 Equivalent number of dwellings* that have single glazing

Draught proofing 9793 Number of dwellings lacking either draught proofing or

double glazing

Cylinder insulation Various Potentials for several thicknesses were evaluated

individually

Condensing boiler 17128 Number of dwellings with gas boilers less those which

already have condensing boilers

Better controls 2102 Number of dwellings presently with no heating controls

EE lighting 20908 Equivalent number of homes* which lack low energy lighting

EE appliances Various Total number of each appliance

Solar water 19330 80% of all homes less the number which already have solar water heating

PV 9892 Half of all dwellings (excluding flats)

Floor insulation 10987 All homes with raised timber floors less the number

already insulated * ‘Equivalent number of homes’ is used where homes can be partially upgraded (e.g. by having 50% of their windows double-glazed). For example, if it is known that 50% of a group of dwellings have 50% of their windows double-glazed, it is equivalent to saying that 25% of that group have 100% of their windows double-glazed.

For future years projections were made of likely uptake rates by fitting S-curves through past data and assuming a continuation of that trend (see Part 3). This has been shown to offer a good fit to past data for many insulation and heating measures. But of course, whilst it offers a sensible basis for prediction, past trends will not necessarily continue in future so this introduces an element of uncertainty, increasing the further into the future one looks. Where new policies have already been announced that are likely to change uptake rates significantly, this is taken into consideration. For example, the draft of Part L of the next Building Regula-tions will require most new boilers to be A or B rated, which is expected to significantly increase their uptake rate (for discussion of this see Part 2).

Using these projections it was found that by 2050 very little potential for saving more carbon will remain for most of the traditional insulation measures, such as cavity wall insulation, since nearly all homes that can have it will do so. For the 2050 analysis therefore, the potential savings from a different set of measures was examined, including more renewable tech-nologies. Since uptake rates of these are presently very low, the potential number of homes these could be applied to is expected still to be large.

For 2001, 2010 and 2020, the capital costs of measures and the fuel costs were those for 2001. But by 2050, it is likely that, in real terms, capital costs of PV generation in particular will have reduced significantly. Hence, an estimate of its 2050 cost was obtained from a recent study ‘Options for a Low Carbon Future’ (7).

1.3 FINDINGS Detailed results are presented in Tables A1 to A4 in Appendix A, with one table for each year. For each measure looked at, the delivered energy saving was calculated (shown in column 2 in


12

the tables). For some measures a comfort factor was applied before carbon and cost savings were calculated. The cost savings were then combined with the capital cost and lifetime data to estimate the cost-effectiveness by calculating equivalent and net annual costs. Figures for an individual dwelling were then converted to national figures by multiplying up by the number of dwellings each measure could be applied to, giving the total capital costs, carbon saving and energy saving potentials needed to produce the graphs that follow.

The main findings of the work are illustrated in Figures 1 to 14. Figures 1 and 2 show the results of analysis for 2001 using the low cost assumptions (Figure 1 covers insulation measures, Figure 2 covers appliances). Figures 3 and 4 are also for 2001, but are based on the high cost assumptions. In the charts used to represent the findings, the measures are ranked according to their cost-effectiveness (the vertical axis), with the horizontal axis representing their poten-tial carbon saving. Those measures which have bars that extend well below zero are highly cost-effective and those which have bars indicating a positive NAC are not cost-effective. Those close to zero are marginal in terms of their cost-effectiveness. Those measures with the widest bars have the potential to save the greatest amount of carbon emissions if they are taken up by all the dwellings that could potentially have them. The total width of all the bars represents the national potential carbon saving from all the measures considered.

Figure 1. Potential National Carbon Savings – 2001 (Insulation measures, low costs)

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Carbon saved (million tonnes/year)

Net

ann

ual c

ost o

f car

bon

save

d (£

/tonn

e)

12

10

13

15 1 7

14

2 8 3 4 9

5

6

11

1. Loft insulation from 0mm2. Loft insulation from 50mm3. Loft insulation from 75mm4. Loft insulation from 100mm5. Loft insulation from 150mm6. Loft insulation from 200mm7. Pre '76 cavity insulation8. Post '76 cavity insulation

9. Solid wall insulation10. Low-e glazing11. Draughtproofing12. Cylinder insulation from 0mm13. Cylinder insulation from 25mm14. Cylinder insulation from 50mm15. Floor insulation

Figure 2. Potential National Carbon Savings – 2001 (Appliances, low costs)

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12


Net

ann

ual c

ost o

f car

bon

save

d (£

/tonn

e)

9

1110

8 6

5

7

14

12

2 1 3

13

15 4

16

1. Condensing boilers2. Heating controls3. Efficient lighting (CFLs)4. Solar water heating5. Washing machines6. Tumble dryers7. Dishwashers8. Refrigerators

9. Fridge/freezers10. Upright freezers11. Chest freezers12. Videos13. Televisions14. Electric ovens15. Electric hobs16. PV

2080r


13

Figure 3. Potential National Carbon Savings – 2001 (Insulation measures, high costs)

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12


Net

ann

ual c

ost o

f car

bon

save

d (£

/tonn

e)

12

13

1 7 8 2

143

4 915

5

11

6

10



1507r

Figure 4. Potential National Carbon Savings – 2001 (Appliances, high costs) pp , g

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12


Net

ann

ual c

ost o

f car

bon

save

d (£

/tonn

e)

9

11

8

10

6

127

13

2 114

15 5

3

4 16



1256 4506rr

The analysis indicates that the total potential saving from the energy efficiency measures looked at is about 22 MtC/yr (million tonnes of carbon emissions per year). Of this, Figures 1 and 2 suggest that about 17.5 MtC/yr can be saved cost-effectively. However, using the higher cost assumptions, Figures 3 and 4 suggest that only 9 MtC/yr of the total saving is cost-effective. Given the range of circumstances found in the housing stock, the true cost-effective potential carbon saving is likely to fall somewhere between these two figures.

It can be seen from Table A1 in Appendix A that the 2001 analysis indicates that the total expenditure required to implement all the measures is currently about £123bn using low costs, or £282bn using high cost assumptions. However, if just the cost-effective measures were implemented the cost would be a more modest £21bn using the low costs or £15.4bn using the high costs. The latter figure is lower because many fewer measures are included since they are not cost effective.

The total energy savings associated with all the measures are estimated to be 980 PJ/yr (roughly half of current national domestic energy consumption), although in practice these savings would be largely offset by increasing levels of service and by the additional energy use of new homes. Assessing the likely savings in practice requires the development of detailed scenarios including an explicit time dimension, and such calculations are described in


14

Part 3 of this report. Of the total energy saving potential about 810 PJ could be achieved cost-effectively assuming low costs, or about half of that if the high costs are assumed.

Even using the low costs, some measures do not appear to be cost-effective (for example solar water heating), so even if they offer a large potential for saving energy, it may prove rather expensive to unlock that. Conversely, those measures which appear cost-effective even using the higher cost assumptions can be viewed as ‘no regrets’ measures which are almost universally justifiable purely in terms of their cost-effectiveness, regardless of the environ-mental benefits.

Figures 5 to 8 show the key figures for 2010. As expected, this indicates that the potential for savings from energy efficiency measures will have fallen slightly to about 17.5 MtC/yr. Of this, using the low cost assumptions, about 13.5 MtC/yr appears cost-effective, or 6.5 MtC/yr if the high costs are assumed. The reduction in the total potential is caused by the uptake of some of that potential between 2001 and 2010. Not surprisingly the most cost-effective measures are taken up fastest, so the proportion of the total potential that is cost-effective under each set of assumptions falls as a percentage of total. There is another reason for the potential savings falling. The carbon intensity of electricity is predicted to be lower in 2010 (and lower still in later years), so the potential for saving carbon through efficient electrical devices falls accordingly.


-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Net

ann

ual c

ost o

f car

bon

save

d (£

/tonn

e)

12

13

10 15 1

14

7 2 8

3

4 9

5

6

11




-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Net

ann

ual c

ost o

f car

bon

save

d (£

/tonn

e)

9

1110

6

7

5

8

13

14

3 2 1

12

15 4

16



2321r


15


-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Net

ann

ual c

ost o

f car

bon

save

d (£

/tonn

e)

1213

1 7 8 2

14

3

4 915

5

11

6

10



1664r

Figure 8. Potential National Carbon Savings – 2010 (Appliances, high costs)

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Net

ann

ual c

ost o

f car

bon

save

d (£

/tonn

e)

9

11

8 6

10

13

2 1

7

12

1514

3

4

5

16



1307 1565 5028r r r

Figures 9 to 12 represent the situation in 2020. The total potential carbon saving indicated for 2020 is about 13.5 MtC/yr, of which 9.5 MtC/yr or 3.5 MtC/yr is indicated as being cost-effective assuming low and high capital costs respectively. Of course, this neglects the possibility that new measures will be available by 2020 through technological progress and assumes the prices of the energy efficiency measures looked at will remain the same in real terms, which may not be the case.

The potential for domestic energy savings in 2050 is estimated in Figures 13 and 14. The total potential for 2050 is significantly larger than for any other year because instead of including traditional energy efficiency measures, such as loft insulation, it includes a number of renewable generation measures, some of which offer large potential savings. It is assumed for 2050 that a larger area of PV will be feasible, hence the potential saving for this measure appears much greater than for earlier years. The total potential carbon saving from the measures considered is shown to be about 29.5 MtC/yr. However, only 17.5 MtC/yr of this is indicated to be cost-effective using low cost estimates and only 0.2 MtC/yr if high cost estimates are used. The latter figure indicates that, whilst it is possible to save a great deal of energy, once all the ‘easy’ domestic efficiency measures are done, it may become increa-singly expensive to save additional tonnes of carbon.


16


-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


Net

ann

ual c

ost o

f car

bon

save

d (£

/tonn

e)

1213

10 15 1

14

7

2

8

3

4 9

5

6

11




-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


Net

ann

ual c

ost o

f car

bon

save

d (£

/tonn

e)

9

10

11

6

57

13

8

32 1

14

15 4

12

16



2809r


-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


Net

ann

ual c

ost o

f car

bon

save

d (£

/tonn

e)

1213

1 7 8 2

15

3

4 915

5

11

6

10



1723


17

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30


Net

ann

ual c

ost o

f car

bon

save

d (£

/tonn

e)

2

18

6

7 3 4 5

r r r r1236 1539 3197 8616

1. Solid wall insulation2. LED lighting3. Solar water heating4. Cavity fill and external insulation5. PV electricity generation (20kWp)6. Biomass boilers7. Electric ground source heatpump8. Floor insulation

Figure 12. Potential National Carbon Savings – 2020 (Appliances, high costs)

Figure 13. Potential National Carbon Savings – 2050 (All measures, low costs)

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30


Net

ann

ual c

ost o

f car

bon

save

d (£

/tonn

e)

2

81 5

7 6

34

r1111

1. Solid wall insulation2. LED lighting3. Solar water heating4. Cavity fill and external insulation5. PV electricity generation (20kWp)6. Biomass boilers7. Electric ground source heatpump8. Floor insulation

Figure 14. Potential National Carbon Savings – 2050 (All measures, high costs)

pp , g

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


Net

ann

ual c

ost o

f car

bon

save

d (£

/tonn

e)

13 9

11

6

8

10

2 1

15

7

34

14

12

5

16



1398 16161877

2948 6086


18

However, it must be noted that estimates for 2050 are highly speculative and a lot could change by then. A single new technology might perhaps be invented that could allow carbon to be saved much more cheaply, or costs could be radically different for those measures considered, as could the price of fuels.

1.4 FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC MEASURES Loft insulation is a cost-effective way to save energy and reduce domestic carbon emissions, although its potential is diminishing fast as it nears saturation. It is cost-effective to add loft in-sulation where there is none or less than 150 mm. When 150 mm or more is already installed in a loft, to add more is not justifiable in terms of the cost savings alone under present circum-stances. (Note that the inclusion of the social cost of carbon at £70/tonne makes an upgrade from 150 mm to 300 mm marginally cost-effective.)

Cavity wall insulation is shown to be highly cost-effective in all cases considered, but the current big savings potential from it looks likely to tail off in coming years as its penetration begins to saturate.

Solid wall insulation does not seem likely to reach saturation in the next few decades due to its much slower uptake rate, hence it still offers significant potential savings in future years. However, it is not shown to be a cost-effective upgrade except as a marginal cost measure (assuming work is taking place on a solid wall anyway). This may explain why its uptake rate is slow. However, if through technological innovation its cost could be reduced, this large potential saving could be realised more quickly. If the cost could be reduced to around £2500 this measure would become marginally cost-effective.

Low-emissivity double glazing is now installed whenever windows are replaced and so its potential saving will be realised gradually over the coming decades as windows are replaced. Due to the high capital costs, there appears little chance of it ever being cost-effective to prematurely replace windows to improve energy efficiency, so the current situation is likely to continue.

The potential saving from draught proofing is shown to be fairly small, but very cost-effective.

Cylinder insulation is a very cost-effective measure, though its potential is fairly small. Since all new cylinders are now well insulated, the potential for this measure will continue to fall as older ones are replaced at the end of their lives.

Condensing boilers are shown to be very cost-effective and to offer the potential for large savings. This saving is likely to be realised quite rapidly in coming years because of the forth-coming change in the Building Regulations requiring most new boilers to be condensing models.

Installing heating controls in dwellings that lack them offers fairly small (but cost-effective) potential energy savings because there are a relatively small number of homes which still have no controls. There may also be a savings potential from upgrading controls where limited controls already exist (this was not considered in this analysis due to limited data on existing controls).

Energy efficient lighting is cost-effective and offers the potential for a significant carbon saving, even taking into account the heat replacement effect.

Energy efficient appliances are a cost-effective energy efficiency measure, with the potential for significant savings.

Solar water heating offers the potential to save a considerable amount of carbon emissions, but currently does not appear cost-effective. It does not seem likely to become cost-effective in the near future.

PV offers potentially significant savings, but it is currently not a cost-effective carbon saving measure, because it is very expensive. However, it is predicted that the cost of PV will fall dramatically over the coming decades, in which case it could become a much more attractive option. By 2050 it is estimated it could cost just 1/10 of its current price, in which case it would be cost-effective (at current fuel prices).

Floor insulation offers the potential for a significant carbon saving, but is only ever likely to be cost-effective as a marginal measure when a floor is in need of repairs anyway. Hence, this saving is likely to be realised only very slowly


19

1.5 CONCLUSIONS In 2001 the potential carbon saving from domestic energy efficiency measures is about 22 MtC/yr, of which between 9 and 17.5 MtC/yr can be saved cost-effectively.

This equates to a total potential energy saving of about 980 PJ/yr (but this level of saving could not actually be achieved in practice) and would cost between £123bn and £282bn to realise. The potential saving from just the cost-effective measures is between 400 and 810 PJ/yr, costing between £15.4bn and £21bn.

In 2010 the potential carbon saving from the same energy efficiency measures will have fallen to about 17.5 MtC/yr, of which between 6.5 and 13.5 MtC/yr could be saved cost-effectively.

In 2020 the potential reduces to 13.5 MtC/yr of which between 3.5 and 9.5 MtC/yr could be saved cost-effectively.

In 2050, by considering a greater range of possible measures, perhaps around 29.5 MtC/yr could potentially be saved. Of this, 0.2 to 17.5 MtC/yr might be saved cost-effectively if the cost assumptions used here are roughly correct.

References

1. Anderson B. R. et al. BREDEM-12 Model description 2001 update, BR 438, BRE, 2002. 2. Boardman B. et al. 2MtC, Environmental Change Unit, University of Oxford. 1997. 3. Market Transformation Programme. Briefing Note BNXS05 - The Heat Replacement Effect,

2004. 4. The Government’s Standard Assessment Procedure for Energy Rating of dwellings. 2001

edition. Published on behalf of Defra by BRECSU, BRE. 2001. 5. H.M. Treasury. The Green Book – Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government, 2003. 6. Shorrock L. D. and Utley J. Domestic Energy Fact File 2003, BR 457, BRE, 2003. 7. Marsh G. et al. Options for a Low Carbon Future, Future Energy Solutions, 2002.

20

App

endi

x A

: Tab

les

Tabl

e A

1. C

ost-e

ffect

iven

ess

anal

ysis

for 2

001

Capit

al co

st of

m

easu

re

(£)

Equiv

alent

an

nual

cost

(£/yr

)

Net a

nnua

l co

st (£/

yr)

Tota

l cap

ital

costs

(£M

)

Cost

per t

onne

of

carb

on sa

ved

(£/to

nne)

Me

asur

e con

sider

ed

Deliv

ered

en

ergy

sa

ving

(GJ/y

r)

Com

fort

facto

r Ca

rbon

sa

ved

(kgC/

yr)

Cost

save

d (£/

yr)

LOW

HI

GH

Lifeti

me

(year

s)

LOW

HI

GH

LOW

HIGH

Poten

tial

hom

es

(000's

) LO

W

HIGH

Tota

l car

bon

savin

g (M

TC/yr

)

Tota

l ene

rgy

savin

g (P

J/yr)

LOW

HI

GH

Loft

insula

tion

to 30

0mm

Curre

ntly w

ith no

ne

25.12

8 0.7

33

7.1

86.22

13

8 27

3 30

7.5

14

.8 -7

8.7

-71.4

12

53

172.9

34

2.0

0.42

22.0

-234

-2

12

Cu

rrentl

y with

50mm

or le

ss

11.13

8 0.7

14

9.4

38.21

13

7 25

4 30

7.4

13

.8 -3

0.8

-24.4

14

55

199.4

37

0.0

0.22

11.3

-206

-1

63

Cu

rrentl

y with

75mm

4.5

18

0.7

60.6

15.50

10

3 22

3 30

5.6

12

.1 -9

.9 -3

.4 34

78

358.3

77

4.1

0.21

11.0

-163

-5

6

Curre

ntly w

ith 10

0mm

3.282

0.7

44

.0 11

.26

86

211

30

4.7

11.5

-6.6

0.2

9098

78

2.4

1924

.2 0.4

0 20

.9 -1

50

5

Curre

ntly w

ith 15

0mm

1.572

0.7

21

.1 5.3

9 69

19

9 30

3.8

10

.8 -1

.6 5.4

18

55

128.0

36

9.1

0.04

2.0

-78

258

Cu

rrentl

y with

200m

m 0.7

87

0.7

10.6

2.70

35

170

30

1.9

9.2

-0.8

6.5

927

32.5

157.7

0.0

1 0.5

-7

5 62

1 Pr

e- 76

Cav

ity in

sulat

ion

23.36

9 0.7

31

3.4

80.13

30

0 32

5 40

14

.0 15

.2 -6

6.1

-64.9

62

19

1865

.620

23.7

1.95

101.7

-2

11

-207

Po

st- 76

Cav

ity in

sulat

ion

13.73

1 0.7

18

4.2

47.10

30

0 32

5 40

14

.0 15

.2 -3

3.0

-31.9

39

23

1176

.812

76.5

0.72

37.7

-179

-1

73

Solid

wall

insu

lation

42

.531

0.7

570.4

14

5.85

1309

32

72

30

71.2

177.9

-7

4.7

32.1

7479

97

89.7

2447

0.54.2

7 22

2.7

-131

56

Fr

om si

ngle

to lo

w-e d

ouble

glaz

ing

11.90

3 0.7

15

9.6

40.81

0

4000

20

0.0

28

1.4

-40.8

24

0.610

746

0.0

4298

2.71.7

2 89

.5 -2

56

1507

Dr

augh

tpro

ofing

1.6

53

0.7

22.2

5.67

85

110

10

10.2

13.2

4.6

7.6

9793

83

2.4

1077

.3 0.2

2 11

.3 20

5 34

1 Ho

t wate

r cyli

nder

insu

lation

to >7

5mm

0.0

Curre

ntly w

ith no

insu

lation

7.0

61

0.7

108.3

28

.75

8 20

15

0.7

1.7

-2

8.1

-27.0

11

37

8.7

22.7

0.12

5.6

-259

-2

49

Cu

rrentl

y with

25mm

insu

lation

2.9

27

0.7

45.1

12.00

8

20

15

0.7

1.7

-11.3

-1

0.3

578

4.4

11.6

0.03

1.2

-251

-2

27

Cu

rrentl

y with

50mm

insu

lation

0.7

23

0.7

11.2

2.97

8 20

15

0.7

1.7

-2

.3 -1

.2 21

07

16.1

42.1

0.02

1.1

-207

-1

11

Cond

ensin

g boil

ers

12.91

7 0.7

17

7.3

45.48

10

0 30

0 12

10

.3 31

.0 -3

5.1

-14.4

17

128

1712

.851

38.3

3.04

154.9

-1

98

-81

Impr

oved

heati

ng co

ntro

ls 11

.353

1 22

3.4

57.38

12

5 25

0 12

12

.9 25

.9 -4

4.4

-31.5

21

02

262.8

52

5.5

0.47

23.9

-199

-1

41

Ener

gy ef

ficien

t ligh

ting

0.195

1

27.8

21.16

85

20

0 6

16.0

37.5

-5.2

16.4

2090

8 17

77.2

4181

.5 0.5

8 4.1

-1

88

589

Solar

wate

r hea

ting

7.966

0.7

11

4.8

29.93

16

50

2475

20

11

6.1

174.1

86

.2 14

4.219

330

3189

3.847

840.8

2.22

107.8

75

0 12

56

Ener

gy ef

ficien

t app

lianc

es

0.0

Was

hing m

achin

es

0.103

1

3.9

2.09

0 30

12

.2 0.0

3.1

-2

.1 1.0

22

317

0.0

669.5

0.0

9 2.3

-5

40

252

Tu

mble

drye

rs 0.5

89

1 22

.0 11

.89

0 30

14

.6 0.0

2.7

-1

1.9

-9.2

1239

0 0.0

37

1.7

0.27

7.3

-540

-4

20

Di

shwa

sher

s 0.2

60

1 9.7

5.2

5 0

31

17.5

0.0

2.4

-5.3

-2.9

5814

0.0

18

0.2

0.06

1.5

-540

-2

94

Re

friger

ators

0.250

1

18.1

12.44

27

35

13

.1 2.6

3.4

-9

.8 -9

.1 10

404

280.9

36

4.1

0.19

2.6

-542

-5

00

Fr

idge/f

reez

ers

0.470

1

34.1

23.40

27

67

18

.1 2.0

5.1

-2

1.4

-18.3

15

348

414.4

10

28.3

0.52

7.2

-626

-5

38

Up

right

freez

ers

0.369

1

26.8

18.36

27

69

14

.3 2.4

6.2

-1

5.9

-12.1

63

37

171.1

43

7.3

0.17

2.3

-595

-4

54

Ch

est fr

eeze

rs 0.3

62

1 26

.3 18

.01

27

59

16.9

2.1

4.7

-15.9

-1

3.3

4207

11

3.6

248.2

0.1

1 1.5

-6

04

-508

Vide

os

0.050

1

4.0

2.78

10

10

7.9

1.5

1.5

-1.3

-1.3

2385

5 23

8.6

238.6

0.0

9 1.2

-3

29

-329

Telev

ision

s 0.0

32

1 2.5

1.7

7 10

10

8.5

1.4

1.4

-0

.4 -0

.4 42

769

427.7

42

7.7

0.11

1.4

-154

-1

54

El

ectric

oven

s 0.1

58

1 12

.5 8.7

1 50

11

0 20

3.5

7.7

-5

.2 -1

.0 13

916

695.8

15

30.8

0.17

2.2

-417

-7

8

Elec

tric ho

bs

0.095

1

7.5

5.24

100

100

20

7.0

7.0

1.8

1.8

1116

4 11

16.4

1116

.4 0.0

8 1.1

24

0 24

0 PV

5.0

49

1 18

5.6

99.41

69

00

1330

0 20

48

5.5

935.8

38

6.183

6.498

92

6825

1.413

1557

.01.8

4 49

.9 20

80

4506

Flo

or in

sulat

ion (r

aised

timbe

r floo

rs)

6.690

1

128.2

32

.75

50

1000

30

2.7

54

.4 -3

0.0

21.6

1098

7 54

9.4

1098

7.01.4

1 73

.5 -2

34

169

TOTA

LS

1232

7328

2687

21

.8 98

3

21

Tabl

e A

2. C

ost-e

ffect

iven

ess

anal

ysis

for 2

010

Capit

al co

st of

m

easu

re

(£)

Equiv

alent

an

nual

cost

(£/yr

)

Net a

nnua

l co

st (£/

yr)

Tota

l cap

ital

costs

(£M

)

Cost

per t

onne

of

carb

on sa

ved

(£/to

nne)

Meas

ure c

onsid

ered

De

liver

ed

ener

gy

savin

g (G

J/yr)

Com

fort

facto

r Ca

rbon

save

d (kg

C/yr

) Co

st sa

ved

(£/yr

) LO

W

HIGH

Lifeti

me

(year

s)

LOW

HI

GH

LOW

HI

GH

Poten

tial

hom

es

(000's

) LO

W

HIGH

Tota

l car

bon

savin

g (M

TC/yr

)

Tota

l ene

rgy

savin

g (P

J/yr)

LOW

HI

GH

Loft

insula

tion

to 30

0mm

Curre

ntly w

ith no

ne

25.12

8 0.7

30

8.9

80.33

13

8 27

3 30

7.5

14

.8 -7

2.8-6

5.512

16

167.9

33

2.0

0.38

21.4

-236

-2

12

Cu

rrentl

y with

50mm

or le

ss

11.13

8 0.7

13

6.9

35.60

13

7 25

4 30

7.4

13

.8 -2

8.1-2

1.810

06

137.8

25

5.8

0.14

7.8

-206

-1

59

Cu

rrentl

y with

75mm

4.5

18

0.7

55.5

14.44

10

3 22

3 30

5.6

12

.1 -8

.8 -2

.3 89

6 92

.3 19

9.5

0.05

2.8

-159

-4

2

Curre

ntly w

ith 10

0mm

3.282

0.7

40

.4 10

.49

86

211

30

4.7

11.5

-5.8

1.0

9910

85

2.2

2095

.9 0.4

0 22

.8 -1

44

25

Cu

rrentl

y with

150m

m 1.5

72

0.7

19.3

5.02

69

199

30

3.8

10.8

-1.3

5.8

1855

12

8.0

369.1

0.0

4 2.0

-6

6 30

0

Curre

ntly w

ith 20

0mm

0.787

0.7

9.7

2.5

1 35

17

0 30

1.9

9.2

-0

.6 6.7

92

7 32

.5 15

7.7

0.01

0.5

-63

696

Pre-

76 C

avity

insu

lation

23

.369

0.7

287.3

74

.66

300

325

40

14.0

15.2

-60.6

-59.4

4399

13

19.8

1431

.7 1.2

6 72

.0 -2

11

-207

Po

st- 76

Cav

ity in

sulat

ion

13.73

1 0.7

16

8.8

43.88

30

0 32

5 40

14

.0 15

.2 -2

9.8-2

8.632

99

989.8

10

73.7

0.56

31.7

-177

-1

70

Solid

wall

insu

lation

42

.531

0.7

522.8

13

5.88

1309

32

72

30

71.2

177.9

-6

4.742

.0 73

50

9621

.424

049.9

3.84

218.8

-1

24

80

From

sing

le to

low-

e dou

ble gl

azing

11

.903

0.7

146.3

38

.02

0 40

00

20

0.0

281.4

-3

8.024

3.462

28

0.0

2491

0.40.9

1 51

.9 -2

60

1664

Dr

augh

tpro

ofing

1.6

53

0.7

20.3

5.28

85

110

10

10.2

13.2

4.9

7.9

5935

50

4.4

652.8

0.1

2 6.9

24

3 39

1 Ho

t wate

r cyli

nder

insu

lation

to >7

5mm

0.0

Curre

ntly w

ith no

insu

lation

7.0

61

0.7

107.8

30

.20

8 20

15

0.7

1.7

-2

9.5-2

8.510

78

8.2

21.6

0.12

5.3

-274

-2

64

Cu

rrentl

y with

25mm

insu

lation

2.9

27

0.7

45.1

12.66

8

20

15

0.7

1.7

-12.0

-10.9

471

3.6

9.4

0.02

1.0

-266

-2

42

Cu

rrentl

y with

50mm

insu

lation

0.7

23

0.7

11.2

3.14

8 20

15

0.7

1.7

-2

.5 -1

.4 17

17

13.1

34.3

0.02

0.9

-222

-1

26

Cond

ensin

g boil

ers

12.91

7 0.7

16

5.3

43.46

10

0 30

0 12

10

.3 31

.0 -3

3.1-1

2.415

135

1513

.545

40.4

2.50

136.8

-2

00

-75

Impr

oved

heati

ng co

ntro

ls 11

.353

1 20

8.8

55.01

12

5 25

0 12

12

.9 25

.9 -4

2.1-2

9.111

11

138.9

27

7.8

0.23

12.6

-202

-1

40

Ener

gy ef

ficien

t ligh

ting

0.195

1

24.4

21.56

85

20

0 6

16.0

37.5

-5.6

16.0

1873

7 15

92.6

3747

.3 0.4

6 3.7

-2

29

654

Solar

wate

r hea

ting

7.966

0.7

11

0.4

29.92

16

50

2475

20

11

6.1

174.1

86

.2 14

4.220

543

3389

5.750

843.6

2.27

114.6

78

1 13

07

Ener

gy ef

ficien

t app

lianc

es

0.0

Was

hing m

achin

es

0.042

1

1.4

0.85

0 30

12

.2 0.0

3.1

-0

.9 2.2

22

317

0.0

669.5

0.0

3 0.9

-6

04

1565

Tumb

le dr

yers

0.528

1

17.7

10.67

0

30

14.6

0.0

2.7

-10.7

-8.0

1239

0 0.0

37

1.7

0.22

6.5

-604

-4

53

Di

shwa

sher

s 0.1

26

1 4.2

2.5

5 0

31

17.5

0.0

2.4

-2.5

-0.1

5814

0.0

18

0.2

0.02

0.7

-604

-3

5

Refrig

erato

rs 0.1

77

1 11

.4 8.9

3 27

35

13

.1 2.6

3.4

-6

.3 -5

.6 10

404

280.9

36

4.1

0.12

1.8

-556

-4

89

Fr

idge/f

reez

ers

0.360

1

23.1

18.17

27

67

18

.1 2.0

5.1

-1

6.1-1

3.115

348

414.4

10

28.3

0.36

5.5

-697

-5

67

Up

right

freez

ers

0.271

1

17.4

13.67

27

69

14

.3 2.4

6.2

-1

1.2-7

.5 63

37

171.1

43

7.3

0.11

1.7

-646

-4

28

Ch

est fr

eeze

rs 0.2

57

1 16

.5 12

.97

27

59

16.9

2.1

4.7

-10.8

-8.3

4207

11

3.6

248.2

0.0

7 1.1

-6

56

-502

Vide

os

0.022

1

1.5

1.22

10

10

7.9

1.5

1.5

0.2

0.2

2385

5 23

8.6

238.6

0.0

4 0.5

16

3 16

3

Telev

ision

s 0.0

51

1 3.5

2.8

4 10

10

8.5

1.4

1.4

-1

.5 -1

.5 42

769

427.7

42

7.7

0.15

2.2

-413

-4

13

El

ectric

oven

s 0.1

00

1 7.0

5.6

1 50

11

0 20

3.5

7.7

-2

.1 2.1

13

916

695.8

15

30.8

0.10

1.4

-299

30

5

Elec

tric ho

bs

0.095

1

6.6

5.31

100

100

20

7.0

7.0

1.7

1.7

1116

4 11

16.4

1116

.4 0.0

7 1.1

26

0 26

0 PV

5.0

49

1 16

6.3

99.41

69

00

1330

0 20

48

5.5

935.8

38

6.183

6.498

92

6825

1.413

1557

.01.6

5 49

.9 23

21

5028

Flo

or in

sulat

ion (r

aised

timbe

r floo

rs)

6.690

1

117.5

30

.51

50

1000

30

2.7

54

.4 -2

7.823

.9 10

941

547.1

10

941.0

1.29

73.2

-237

20

3

TO

TALS

12

3269

2641

14

17.5

860

22

Tabl

e A

3. C

ost-e

ffect

iven

ess

anal

ysis

for 2

020

Capit

al co

st of

m

easu

re

(£)

Equiv

alent

an

nual

cost

(£/yr

)

Net a

nnua

l co

st (£/

yr)

Tota

l cap

ital

costs

(£M

)

Cost

per t

onne

of

carb

on sa

ved

(£/to

nne)

Meas

ure c

onsid

ered

De

liver

ed

ener

gy

savin

g (G

J/yr)

Com

fort

facto

r Ca

rbon

save

d (kg

C/yr

) Co

st sa

ved

(£/yr

) LO

W

HIGH

Lifeti

me

(year

s)

LOW

HI

GH

LOW

HI

GH

Poten

tial

hom

es

(000's

) LO

W

HIGH

Tota

l car

bon

savin

g (M

TC/yr

)

Tota

l ene

rgy

savin

g (P

J/yr)

LOW

HI

GH

Loft

insula

tion

to 30

0mm

Curre

ntly w

ith no

ne

25.12

8 0.7

29

8.4

80.33

13

8 27

3 30

7.5

14

.8 -7

2.8-6

5.511

81

163.0

32

2.3

0.35

20.8

-244

-2

19

Cu

rrentl

y with

50mm

or le

ss

11.13

8 0.7

13

2.2

35.60

13

7 25

4 30

7.4

13

.8 -2

8.1-2

1.860

4 82

.7 15

3.5

0.08

4.7

-213

-1

65

Cu

rrentl

y with

75mm

4.5

18

0.7

53.6

14.44

10

3 22

3 30

5.6

12

.1 -8

.8 -2

.3 11

4 11

.8 25

.5 0.0

1 0.4

-1

65

-44

Cu

rrentl

y with

100m

m 3.2

82

0.7

39.0

10.49

86

21

1 30

4.7

11

.5 -5

.8 1.0

98

61

848.0

20

85.6

0.38

22.7

-149

26

Curre

ntly w

ith 15

0mm

1.572

0.7

18

.7 5.0

2 69

19

9 30

3.8

10

.8 -1

.3 5.8

18

55

128.0

36

9.1

0.03

2.0

-68

311

Cu

rrentl

y with

200m

m 0.7

87

0.7

9.3

2.51

35

170

30

1.9

9.2

-0.6

6.7

927

32.5

157.7

0.0

1 0.5

-6

5 72

1 Pr

e- 76

Cav

ity in

sulat

ion

23.36

9 0.7

27

7.5

74.66

30

0 32

5 40

14

.0 15

.2 -6

0.6-5

9.428

79

863.8

93

7.0

0.80

47.1

-218

-2

14

Post-

76 C

avity

insu

latio

n 13

.731

0.7

163.0

43

.88

300

325

40

14.0

15.2

-29.8

-28.6

2554

76

6.1

831.0

0.4

2 24

.5 -1

83

-176

So

lid w

all in

sulat

ion

42.53

1 0.7

50

5.0

135.8

8 13

09

3272

30

71

.2 17

7.9

-64.7

42.0

7231

94

65.3

2365

9.73.6

5 21

5.3

-128

83

Fr

om si

ngle

to lo

w-e d

ouble

glaz

ing

11.90

3 0.7

14

1.3

38.02

0

4000

20

0.0

28

1.4

-38.0

243.4

2882

0.0

11

527.2

0.41

24.0

-269

17

23

Drau

ghtp

roof

ing

1.653

0.7

19

.6 5.2

8 85

11

0 10

10

.2 13

.2 4.9

7.9

29

79

253.3

32

7.7

0.06

3.4

252

405

Hot w

ater c

ylind

er in

sulat

ion to

>75m

m

0.0

Curre

ntly w

ith no

insu

lation

7.0

61

0.7

98.4

30.20

8

20

15

0.7

1.7

-29.5

-28.5

1018

7.8

20

.4 0.1

0 5.0

-3

00

-289

Curre

ntly w

ith 25

mm in

sulat

ion

2.927

0.7

41

.0 12

.66

8 20

15

0.7

1.7

-1

2.0-1

0.935

3 2.7

7.1

0.0

1 0.7

-2

92

-266

Curre

ntly w

ith 50

mm in

sulat

ion

0.723

0.7

10

.2 3.1

4 8

20

15

0.7

1.7

-2.5

-1.4

1288

9.8

25

.8 0.0

1 0.7

-2

44

-138

Co

nden

sing b

oiler

s 12

.917

0.7

157.9

43

.46

100

300

12

10.3

31.0

-33.1

-12.4

6639

66

3.9

1991

.8 1.0

5 60

.0 -2

10

-79

Impr

oved

heati

ng co

ntro

ls 11

.353

1 19

9.1

55.01

12

5 25

0 12

12

.9 25

.9 -4

2.1-2

9.148

5 60

.6 12

1.3

0.10

5.5

-211

-1

46

Ener

gy ef

ficien

t ligh

ting

0.195

1

17.3

21.56

85

20

0 6

16.0

37.5

-5.6

16.0

1575

2 13

38.9

3150

.4 0.2

7 3.1

-3

24

922

Solar

wate

r hea

ting

7.966

0.7

10

3.2

29.92

16

50

2475

20

11

6.1

174.1

86

.2 14

4.221

979

3626

5.454

398.1

2.27

122.6

83

5 13

98

Ener

gy ef

ficien

t app

lianc

es

0.0

Was

hing m

achin

es

0.030

1

0.8

0.61

0 30

12

.2 0.0

3.1

-0

.6 2.5

22

317

0.0

669.5

0.0

2 0.7

-7

33

2948

Tumb

le dr

yers

0.427

1

11.8

8.62

0 30

14

.6 0.0

2.7

-8

.6 -6

.0 12

390

0.0

371.7

0.1

5 5.3

-7

33

-507

Dish

wash

ers

0.059

1

1.6

1.18

0 31

17

.5 0.0

2.4

-1

.2 1.2

58

14

0.0

180.2

0.0

1 0.3

-7

33

753

Re

friger

ators

0.122

1

5.9

6.15

27

35

13.1

2.6

3.4

-3.5

-2.8

1040

4 28

0.9

364.1

0.0

6 1.3

-6

05

-473

Fridg

e/fre

ezer

s 0.2

70

1 13

.0 13

.62

27

67

18.1

2.0

5.1

-11.6

-8.6

1534

8 41

4.4

1028

.3 0.2

0 4.1

-8

92

-660

Uprig

ht fre

ezer

s 0.2

12

1 10

.2 10

.68

27

69

14.3

2.4

6.2

-8.2

-4.5

6337

17

1.1

437.3

0.0

6 1.3

-8

11

-439

Ches

t free

zers

0.182

1

8.8

9.20

27

59

16.9

2.1

4.7

-7.1

-4.5

4207

11

3.6

248.2

0.0

4 0.8

-8

05

-515

Vide

os

0.010

1

0.5

0.54

10

10

7.9

1.5

1.5

0.9

0.9

2385

5 23

8.6

238.6

0.0

1 0.2

18

77

1877

Telev

ision

s 0.0

67

1 3.5

3.7

5 10

10

8.5

1.4

1.4

-2

.4 -2

.4 42

769

427.7

42

7.7

0.15

2.9

-683

-6

83

El

ectric

oven

s 0.0

55

1 2.9

3.1

0 50

11

0 20

3.5

7.7

0.4

4.6

13

916

695.8

15

30.8

0.04

0.8

145

1616

Elec

tric ho

bs

0.095

1

4.9

5.31

100

100

20

7.0

7.0

1.7

1.7

1116

4 11

16.4

1116

.4 0.0

5 1.1

35

1 35

1 PV

5.0

49

1 13

7.4

99.41

69

00

1330

0 20

48

5.5

935.8

38

6.183

6.498

92

6825

1.413

1557

.01.3

6 49

.9 28

09

6086

Flo

or in

sulat

ion (r

aised

timbe

r floo

rs)

6.690

1

113.5

30

.51

50

1000

30

2.7

54

.4 -2

7.823

.9 10

921

546.1

10

921.0

1.24

73.1

-245

21

0

TO

TALS

12

3219

2492

02

13.4

705

23

Tabl

e A

4. C

ost-e

ffect

iven

ess

anal

ysis

for 2

050

Capit

al co

st of

m

easu

re

(£)

Equiv

alent

an

nual

cost

(£/yr

)

Net a

nnua

l co

st (£/

yr)

Total

capit

al co

sts

(£M)

Cost

per t

onne

of

carb

on sa

ved

(£/to

nne)

Me

asur

e con

sider

ed

Deliv

ered

en

ergy

sa

ving

(GJ/y

r)

Com

fort

facto

r Ca

rbon

save

d (k

gC/yr

) Co

st sa

ved

(£/yr

) LO

W

HIGH

Lifeti

me

(year

s)

LOW

HI

GH

LOW

HIGH

Poten

tial

hom

es

(000's

) LO

W

HIGH

Tota

l car

bon

savin

g (M

TC/yr

)

Tota

l ene

rgy

savin

g (P

J/yr)

LOW

HI

GH

Solid

wall

insu

latio

n 42

.531

0.7

484.2

13

5.12

1309

32

72

30

71.2

177.9

-6

3.942

.8 69

45

9091

22

724

3.36

206.8

-1

32

88

Ener

gy ef

ficien

t lig

htin

g (L

ED)

0.433

1

9.1

12.56

17

85

12

1.8

8.8

-1

0.8-3

.8 20

000

340

1700

0.1

8 8.7

-1

184

-412

So

lar w

ater

hea

ting

7.966

0.7

93

.9 29

.67

1650

24

75

20

116.1

17

4.1

86.4

144.5

26

201

4323

164

846

2.46

146.1

92

0 15

38

Exte

rnall

y ins

ulat

e fille

d ca

vity w

alls

4.494

0.7

51

.2 14

.31

1309

32

72

30

71.2

177.9

56

.9 16

3.6

1200

0 15

708

3926

4 0.6

1 37

.7 11

11

3197

PV

54

.000

1 10

38.3

1063

.26

1422

5 14

2246

20

10

00.9

1000

9-6

2.489

45.3

1221

1 17

3697

1736

966

12.68

65

9.4

-60

8616

Bi

omas

s boi

lers

0.000

1

600.0

0.9

7 25

00

4000

20

17

5.9

281.4

17

4.928

0.5

5000

12

500

2000

0 3.0

0 0.0

29

2 46

7 Gr

ound

sour

ce h

eat p

umps

19

.905

1 23

7.1

93.85

23

00

5500

20

16

1.8

387.0

68

.0 29

3.1

2500

0 57

500

1375

00

5.93

497.6

28

7 12

36

Floo

r ins

ulat

ion

(raise

d tim

ber f

loor

s)6.6

90

1 10

8.8

30.34

50

10

00

30

2.7

54.4

-27.6

24.0

1086

1 54

3 10

861

1.18

72.7

-254

22

1

TO

TALS

31

2610

2033

861

29.4

1629


24

Part 2. Assessing the effects of domestic sector energy efficiency policies

SUMMARY This part of the report addresses the effectiveness of domestic sector energy efficiency policies.

Section 2.2 follows on from work previously undertaken on assessing the effects of grants, updating these analyses and also extending the basic methodology to consider the effects of specific schemes.

The results indicate marked differences between the effectiveness of different schemes and allow a ranking to be established between four key schemes (the Homes Insulation Scheme, the Energy Conservation Programme, the Standards of Performance and the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme / Warm Front).

As regards the updating, there are some limitations to what is possible due to data availability difficulties. In particular, grant expenditure figures are not available after 1999/2000, so the quantitative analyses cannot be extended beyond this.

Section 2.3 considers the effects of other types of domestic sector energy efficiency policies. It presents several examples that look specifically at the effects of energy labelling, minimum standards and Building Regulations and how these interact. Cold appliances (refrigerators, freezers, etc.), wet appliances (washing machines, dishwashers, etc.) and boilers are considered.

The results show that energy labelling, when coupled with minimum standards (whether intro-duced voluntarily, through EU regulations or via national Building Regulations), is generally able to transform the market for individual appliances in five to seven years.

Energy labelling in isolation, however, does not appear to have much effect in transforming the market. Indeed, the results for cold appliances in particular suggest very strongly that the market would definitely not have been transformed without the minimum standards, and also that manufacturers will wait until the last possible moment before complying with such mini-mum standards.

One further analysis shows that Building Regulation standards that apply only to new dwel-lings tend to be taken up as good practice for the refurbishment of existing dwellings. This emphasises the importance of continually upgrading Building Regulations.

Section 2.4 presents the results of calculations of the energy and carbon savings due to the energy efficiency policies discussed in Sections 2.2 and 2.3. The analyses for grants are essentially an update of previous work, and they lead to fairly similar conclusions to those reached previously. The other analyses are completely new and allow the effects of the various energy efficiency policies to be compared.

These comparisons show that Building Regulations and grants have been broadly equal in their effects and together they dominate the calculated savings. The savings from labelling and minimum standards are much lower, but this is only to be expected because they have not been running for as long.


25

2.1 INTRODUCTION The effects of individual energy efficiency policies can be difficult to establish. Firstly, the policies are generally not separable from one-another, so that all that one can normally measure is an overall effect due to several policies. Secondly, the available data are subject to limitations that restrict the analyses that are possible. Nonetheless, previous work has been successful in identifying the effects of grants for three separate energy efficiency measures (1). Such findings are useful for making realistic assessments of the likely effects of policies in the future, and hence the impact on future carbon emissions.

Section 2.2 updates the earlier work by incorporating the latest data available. It also extends the previous analyses by looking at the effects of individual grant schemes, as far as this is possible. Some conclusions on the effectiveness of different schemes can be drawn from the analyses.

Section 2.3 considers the effects of policies other than grants. In particular, the effects of energy labelling, minimum standards and Building Regulations are considered. Several examples illustrate the effectiveness of such policies and allow this to be quantified in terms of the time that it takes to transform the relevant market.

Section 2.4 presents the results of calculations of energy and carbon savings for the policies discussed in Sections 2.2 and 2.3. These calculations allow the current relative importance of the different energy efficiency policies to be determined. Broadly, they show that grants and Building Regulations are equally important and together they dominate the calculated overall savings.

2.2 THE EFFECTS OF GRANTS Update of earlier analyses

Previous work has demonstrated the actual effects of grants for loft insulation, cavity wall insulation and condensing boilers up to 1999/2000. Despite some data limitations, in each case a reasonably comprehensive picture was possible, illustrating the link between grant expenditures and acquisitions of the measures, and allowing this to be quantified (1).

To update the analyses, data on the acquisitions of these measures to 2001/2002 were first assembled. In addition, data on grants were obtained from the Energy Saving Trust (the Stan-dards of Performance and Cashback schemes), and through the Energy Efficiency Partner-ship for Homes (HEES/Warm Front grants for cavity wall insulation). However, data provided in the published National Audit Office report on HEES/Warm Front (2) has been used in preference to the latter as it is more complete and is considered more reliable.

A limitation with all the new data is that since 1999/2000 there appears to be no requirement for information on expenditures to be provided by suppliers. Thus, the quantitative analyses relating acquisitions to grant expenditures cannot be updated beyond 1999/2000. In one sense therefore there is no point in pursuing the data collection as comprehensively as might otherwise be the case. On the other hand, assuming that the previous regression analyses remain valid, it is possible to make a reasonable estimate of the relevant expenditures from the number of grants. Thus, the illustrative charts showing the link between grants and acqui-sitions can be updated, albeit in a slightly approximate manner. This is useful for illustrating the current trends.

Of course, this assumes that data on the number of grants for each of the additional years is available and is complete, which at the time that this work was undertaken was actually not entirely the case. Some estimates had to be made to complete the picture. These are noted under the tables in Appendix B. Indeed, it also has to be noted that many of the grants figures that were provided appear to be estimates anyway. For example, Standards of Performance (SoP3) figures for 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 are shown as being identical – which either means that 2001/2002 figures were not known and were just set equal to the previous year as the best estimate, or else that a total for the two years of SoP3 was known but the individual year figures could only be estimated. Either way, this implies that there is not much point in focusing on the precise numbers at this stage – all numbers for grants beyond 1999/2000 should be simply regarded as best estimates, subject to revision when, and if, more robust figures become available in the future.


26

Loft insulation

Figure 15 presents an update to the chart showing the relationship between grant expendi-tures and acquisitions of loft insulation. The expenditures for the final two years are shown in grey rather than black to indicate that these are just estimates based on the regression result for the data to 1999/2000 (note that for this reason all expenditures are given in 1999/2000 money values – and this applies to all expenditure figures presented in this part of the report). Note also that most of the historical grants figures for the Standards of Performance for this measure have been revised by the Energy Saving Trust since the original work was done. However, these changes are too small to show a visible difference as compared with the earlier version of the chart, and indeed even the more detailed quantitative analyses do not significantly change as a result of these revisions.

Figure 15. Loft insulation acquisitions in existing homes related to grant expenditure

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992/93 1994/95 1996/97 1998/99 2000/01

Loft

insu

latio

n ac

quis

ition

s

0

60

120

180

240

300

360

Gra

nt e

xpen

ditu

re (£

M)

Grant aided acquisitions Non-grant aided acquisitions Grant expenditure (£M)

Note that there has been a sharp fall in the number of loft insulation acquisitions between 2000/2001 and 2001/2002. Both the Standards of Performance and HEES data actually indi-cate a substantially higher number of grants in each of 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 as compared with 1999/2000, so this means that there must have been a large fall in the number of house-holds acquiring loft insulation without a grant. The available figures suggest that the proportion of acquisitions without a grant has fallen from about 78% in 1999/2000 to 64% in 2001/2002. This latter figure is similar to the proportion which applied in the mid-1990s.

Table B1 in Appendix B presents the updated data for loft insulation acquisitions and grants in more detail.

Cavity wall insulation

Figure 16 shows the update to the chart illustrating the relationship between grants and acquisitions for cavity wall insulation. Again, the last two expenditure figures are shown in grey to indicate that they are estimates based on the regression result for the earlier data.

This shows the same fall-off in acquisitions between 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 as seen in the loft insulation figures. The difference is that the number of grants for this measure has also fallen off markedly. The Standards of Performance data actually indicate substantially more grants after 1999/2000 than before, but there is a significant drop shown in HEES/Warm Front and other grants which counteracts this.

This is perhaps related to problems with the timing of the introduction of the latest HEES scheme, and probably more importantly to the fact that the grants are now available for a wider range of measures, including heating systems. This implies that the available resources are being spread more thinly, thereby resulting in less insulation work taking place than was the case previously. Indeed, figures in the National Audit Office report (2) can be used to show that in 2001/2002 over 40% of the grant expenditure must have gone on heating systems, and this was more than that on loft insulation and cavity wall insulation combined. Loft insulation


27

and cavity wall insulation each accounted for only around 13% of the measures installed under the scheme in that year.

Table B2 in Appendix B presents the updated data for cavity wall insulation acquisitions and grants in more detail.

Figure 16. Cavity wall insulation acquisitions in existing homes related to grant expenditure

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250000

300,000

1990/1991 1991/1992 1992/1993 1993/1994 1994/1995 1995/1996 1996/1997 1997/1998 1998/1999 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002

Cav

ity w

all i

nsul

atio

n ac

quis

ition

s

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

Gra

nt e

xpen

ditu

re (£

M)

Grant aided acquisitions Non-grant aided acquisitions Grant expenditure (£M)

Condensing boilers

Figure 17 shows the update to the chart illustrating the relationship between grants and sales for condensing boilers. Unlike the other two measures, the sales of condensing boilers have not decreased since 2000/2001. Again, the last two expenditure figures are shown in grey to indicate that they are estimates based on the regression result for the earlier data.

Clearly, the sales of condensing boilers have continued to grow rapidly – more rapidly than the number of grants alone can explain, although grants have clearly been important as Figure 17 indicates. As will be discussed later, it appears likely that plans for changes to the Building Regulations are providing a strong driver for the increasing sales of condensing boilers.

Table B3 in Appendix B presents the updated data for condensing boiler sales and grants in more detail.

Figure 17. Condensing boiler sales related to grant expenditure

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1990/1991 1991/1992 1992/1993 1993/1994 1994/1995 1995/1996 1996/1997 1997/1998 1998/1999 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002

Sale

s of

con

dens

ing

boile

rs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Gra

nt e

xpen

ditu

re (£

M)

Grant aided sales Non-grant aided sales to existing homes Sales to new homes Grant expenditure (£M)


28

The effects of individual schemes

The effects of individual schemes are difficult to determine. This is because it is generally impossible to identify which acquisitions occurred under which schemes. However, there are instances where such identifications can be made, at least approximately. In the original analyses for loft insulation, for example, two distinct time periods were considered and shown to have different characteristics. These different characteristics could be identified with a change in the nature of the grants – going from generally available grants to grants targeted on low-income households. However, the change also coincided with the transition between the rapid growth phase and the saturation phase of the ownership curve. Consequently, it was not possible to read too much into the differences that were observed.

In the following, analyses focusing on the acquisitions in the target households for individual schemes are considered further in order to try to better identify any differences between schemes. Firstly, the data on loft insulation up to the end of the Homes Insulation Scheme and the Energy Conservation Programme is examined. Secondly, the early years of the Standards of Performance, when the scheme was focused entirely on electrically heated homes, are considered.

The Homes Insulation Scheme and Energy Conservation Programme

The Homes Insulation Scheme (HIS) was aimed primarily at homeowners. Consequently, the acquisitions in owner occupied homes can be associated with this scheme. Conversely, the Energy Conservation Programme (ECP) was designed to improve local authority homes. Thus, the effects of the two schemes, which ran side-by-side from 1978 to 1990, can be examined using the available data.

Figure 18 shows the data for the HIS in the same format as the figures presented earlier. It is clear from this that there is a strong link between the acquisitions of loft insulation in owner occupied homes and the HIS grants. This is examined in more detail in Figure 19, which shows that the effect of the grants was to increase the number of acquisitions by 5.4 thousand for each million pounds of grant expenditure. The fact that the gradient of the acquisitions line is less than that of the grants line indicates the presence of a free-rider effect (1).

Figure 20 shows the data for ECP grants and the loft insulation acquisitions in local authority homes. The link, although still evident, is not as clear as for the HIS data. Indeed it has to be noted that the ECP figures for the numbers of grants often exceed the numbers of acquisitions (for the purposes of the presentation in Figure 20 they have been restricted to the number of acquisitions), which is clearly not possible.

Figure 18. Loft insulation acquisitions in existing owner occupied homes related to Homes Insulation Scheme grant expenditure

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Year

Loft

insu

latio

n ac

quis

ition

s (th

ousa

nds)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Gra

nt e

xpen

ditu

re (£

M)

Non-grant aided acquisitions Grant aided acquisitions Grant expenditure (£M)


29

Figure 19. Loft insulation acquisitions in existing owner occupied homes related to Homes Insulation Scheme grant expenditure

y = 7.8838xR2 = 0.973

y = 5.3916x + 195.87R2 = 0.7586

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Grant expenditure (£M)

Loft

insu

latio

n ac

quis

ition

s (th

ousa

nds)

Acquisitions Grants Linear (Grants) Linear (Acquisitions)

Figure 20. Loft insulation acquisitions in existing local authority homes related to Energy Conservation Programme grant expenditure

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Year

Loft

insu

latio

n ac

quis

ition

s (th

ousa

nds)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Gra

nt e

xpen

ditu

re (£

M)

Non-grant aided acquisitions Grant aided acquisitions Grant expenditure (£M)

One possible explanation for this lies in the fact that the grants did not cover just loft insulation, although most of the expenditure would undoubtedly have been for this measure. However, if there were a lot of homes that benefited from just hot water tank insulation (and this may have been the case given that many local authority homes are flats, only a proportion of which would be on the top floor and have a loft) these would appear in the numbers of grants even though they had nothing to do with loft insulation. Unfortunately, there are no figures available on the ECP grants that would allow this hypothesis to be checked.

Bearing in mind the above point, Figure 21 shows the link between the ECP grant expendi-tures and the acquisitions. The grant expenditures are dominated by loft insulation, so the relationship between expenditure and acquisitions is probably fairly robust. The relationship between the number of grants and the grant expenditures needs to be viewed with more caution, for the reasons noted above. Nonetheless, the different gradients again point to the presence of a free rider effect.


30

Figure 21. Loft insulation acquisitions in existing local authority homes related to Energy Conservation Programme grant expenditure

y = 6.4235xR2 = 0.9519

y = 2.4166x + 76.627R2 = 0.5234

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Loft

insu

latio

n ac

quis

ition

s (th

ousa

nds)

Acquisitions Grants Linear (Grants) Linear (Acquisitions)

Figure 21 indicates that loft insulation acquisitions in local authority homes increased by 2.4 thousand for each million pounds of grant expenditure. It will be noted that this is less than half of the increase that the HIS grants achieved.

However, it is not surprising that the HIS gradient should be greater because this was, until 1988, only providing 66% of the cost of the improvement whereas the ECP was fully funding the improvement. On this basis, a gradient of about 1.5 times that for the ECP would be expected. The fact that the ratio is actually about 1.5 times this indicates that the HIS was indeed more effective than the ECP, even when correcting for the different expenditure levels.

This is a slightly surprising result. Received wisdom suggests that it is hard to achieve energy efficiency improvements where the responsibility for those improvements is distributed amongst many householders, but much easier where there are fewer decision makers who are making the choice on behalf of many households. This result suggests that, in this case at least, this view is incorrect. The obvious interpretation is that householders perceived the HIS grants to be an opportunity that was too good to be missed, and they took full advantage of it thereby making the scheme highly successful. This is clearly the sort of success story that needs to be replicated with cavity wall insulation and other measures. In fact, as will be seen later, it does appear that the Standards of Performance have managed to come fairly close to achieving a similar level of success for cavity wall insulation.

The Energy Efficiency Standards of Performance and Home Energy Efficiency Scheme

The Energy Efficiency Standards of Performance (SoP) scheme between 1994/1995 and 1999/2000 applied exclusively to electrically heated homes. Moreover, for the first two of these years this was the only scheme that was providing grants for cavity wall insulation. Even in later years where other schemes such as HEES provided grants, these would have tended to be complementary (i.e. principally addressing non-electrically heated homes). Thus, for cavity wall insulation, it is possible to use the available data on acquisitions in electrically heated homes to identify the effect of SoP.

Note that this is not possible for loft insulation because the number of installations under SoP was very small compared to those under HEES, and the latter was already providing grants to the SoP target homes before the SoP scheme began. Thus, it is impossible to reliably identify the loft insulation acquisitions that were due to SoP.

Even for cavity wall insulation, the identification is not perfect. In the later years, some electrically heated homes could have received grants through HEES rather than SoP. Also it has to be noted that the sample sizes are quite small for acquisitions in electrically heated homes so the data is inevitably a little noisy. Finally, it is worth noting that the definition of electrically heated for SoP may not entirely correspond with the definition for the surveys that collect the acquisitions data. Indeed, there is strong anecdotal evidence that many homes that benefited from SoP grants used other fuels for heating as well as electricity (3), so it is quite


31

possible that such homes might actually have been recorded in some cases as being non-electrically heated in the acquisitions surveys.

Bearing in mind the above caveats, Figure 22 shows the acquisitions of cavity wall insulation in electrically heated homes compared with the SoP grants and expenditures. Note again that for the purposes of this plot any grants figure that is greater than the corresponding acquisi-tions figure has been restricted to the latter. Despite the rather noisy plot, due to sample size difficulties, it is evident that there is a relationship between the acquisitions and the grants. In fact, by plotting the data cumulatively much of the noise is removed and the relationship becomes rather clearer, as illustrated in Figure 23.

Figure 22. The effect of the Standards of Performance on cavity wall insulation uptake (acquisitions in electrically heated existing homes only)

0 5000

10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000

1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 Year

Acq

uisi

tions

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Gra

nt e

xpen

ditu

re (£

M)

Non-grant aided acquisitions Grant aided acquisitions Grant expenditure

Figure 23. The effect of the Standards of Performance on cavity wall insulation uptake (acquisitions in electrically heated existing homes only)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 Year

Cum

ulat

ive

acqu

isiti

ons

from

199

0/91

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0 C

umul

ativ

e gr

ant e

xpen

ditu

re (£

M)

Grant aided acquisitions Non-grant aided acquisitions Grant expenditure

These results clearly show that the introduction of SoP grants for this measure had an immediate effect. The rate of acquisitions in electrically heated homes after 1993/1994 was four times as great as the rate before, as indicated by the sudden change of gradient in 1993/1994 on Figure 23. Looked at in another way Figure 24 shows the relationship between acquisitions, grants and grant expenditures and quantifies the effect per million pounds of expenditure. It is worth noting that the gradient of the acquisitions line is greater than that for


32

cavity wall insulation grants overall (1), indicating that the SoP grants were more effective by this metric than other grants at this time.

Indeed, Figures 25 to 27 repeat the same plots as Figures 22 to 24 but focus on the effect of non-SoP grants (i.e. mainly HEES grants) on the acquisitions in non-electrically heated homes. Again, the effect of the relevant schemes being introduced is evident. The rate of acquisitions after 1995/1996 is about twice as great as that before, as indicated by the sudden change of gradient in 1995/1996 on Figure 26. The acquisitions line on Figure 27 is not as steep as that on Figure 24 indicating the lower effectiveness of these grants.

Figure 24. Cavity wall insulation acquisitions in existing electrically heated homes related to Standards of Performance grant expenditure

y = 4645.5xR2 = 0.9114

y = 3592.8x + 12473R2 = 0.7049

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


Cav

ity w

all i

nsul

atio

n ac

quis

ition

s

Acquisitions Acquisitions with a grant Linear (Acquisitions with a grant) Linear (Acquisitions)

Figure 25. The effect of grants other than the Standards of Performance on cavity wall insulation uptake (acquisitions in non-electrically heated existing homes only)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 Year

Acq

uisi

tions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 G

rant

exp

endi

ture

(£M

)

Non-grant aided acquisitions Grant aided acquisitions Grant expenditure


33

Figure 26. The effect of grants other than the Standards of Performance on cavity wall insulation uptake (acquisitions in non-electrically heated existing homes only)

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 Year

Cum

ulat

ive

acqu

isiti

ons

from

199

0/91

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

Cum

ulat

ive

gran

t exp

endi

ture

(£M

)

Grant aided acquisitions Non-grant aided acquisitions Grant expenditure

Figure 27. Cavity wall insulation acquisitions in existing non-electrically heated homes related to non-Standards of Performance grant expenditure

y = 3904.5xR2 = 0.9946

y = 3052x + 87046R2 = 0.8135

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40


Cav

ity w

all i

nsul

atio

n ac

quis

ition

s

Acquisitions Acquisitions with a grant Linear (Acquisitions with a grant) Linear (Acquisitions)

Conclusions on the effectiveness of different types of grant

The preceding discussions have allowed the following increases in acquisitions for each million pounds of expenditure to be identified:

Homes Insulation Scheme (loft insulation) 5.4 thousand Energy Conservation Programme (loft insulation) 2.4 thousand Standards of Performance (cavity wall insulation) 3.6 thousand Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (cavity wall insulation) 3.1 thousand *

* This is actually all non-SoP scheme related acquisitions but these are dominated by HEES (during the period considered, approximately 70% of non-SoP grants for cavity wall insulation were provided by HEES: see Table B2 in Appendix B).

Clearly, it is a little difficult to directly compare the schemes because of the two different measures being considered and their different costs. However, by considering the present day relative costs of each measure (determined from the relevant regression of numbers of grants against grant expenditures contained in reference 1) it is possible to adjust the loft insulation figures to produce an estimate of what they would have been if cavity wall insulation had been the measure that was addressed by the scheme. This then allows the schemes to be ranked


34

as follows, again using the metric of the extra number of acquisitions achieved per million pounds of expenditure:

Homes Insulation Scheme 4.3 thousand Standards of Performance 3.6 thousand Home Energy Efficiency Scheme 3.1 thousand Energy Conservation Programme 1.9 thousand

Thus, assessed using this metric, the Standards of Performance have come fairly close to repeating the success of the Homes Insulation Scheme. The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme / Warm Front has been slightly less successful, but has achieved results that are considerably better than the Energy Conservation Programme. There is a factor of more than two between the results achieved by the schemes.

It turns out that the overall relative performance of grants prior to 1990 (on the adjusted basis discussed above) is almost the same as that afterwards – around 3.4 thousand extra acqui-sitions per million pounds of expenditure (i.e. on average about £295 in 1999/2000 money needs to be spent on grants to produce each additional acquisition).

2.3 EFFECTS OF LABELLING, MINIMUM STANDARDS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS

Introduction to the following analyses

Section 2.2 showed how the effects of grants can be quantified in terms of a response that results from a given level of expenditure. There are other energy efficiency policies that it is not possible to quantify in the same sort of numeric way but which nonetheless have an observable, and important, effect. These include energy labelling, minimum standards and Building Regulations. In fact, it is generally the combination of these that produces an improvement in energy efficiency, as this section will show.

The discussion that follows will focus in turn on cold appliances (refrigerators, fridge-freezers, etc), wet appliances (washing machines, dishwashers, etc) and boilers. Building Regulations will mainly be discussed in relation to boilers but a further analysis showing how Building Regulations energy efficiency requirements for new dwellings can filter through to the existing stock will also be presented.

Although this section is about labelling, minimum standards and Building Regulations, the discussion on cold appliances will also touch upon the effect of grants through the Standards of Performance and how these affected the uptake of A-rated appliances, those with the highest efficiency.φ

Cold appliances

Figure 28 shows the data (supplied by the Energy Saving Trust) on sales of all cold appliances (refrigerators, fridge-freezers, upright freezers and chest freezers) by energy band from 1996 (the year after the introduction of the energy label in January 1995) to 2001. It should be noted that the data do not cover all sales, but they do encompass sales by the majority of retailers so they are still reasonably comprehensive and the trends they show should be representative of the true situation. In September 1999 a maximum consumption directive was introduced requiring all appliances to be rated C or above (except for chest freezers where D and E rated appliances were permitted).

It is clear from the figure that the combination of labelling and minimum standards has successfully transformed the market, but that it seems to have taken a couple of years beyond the introduction of the minimum standard for this to have been fully achieved. It is possible that this may be because of retailers still having stocks of less efficient appliances, or it could equally be a problem with the collection of the statistics (the presence of an “unknown” category suggests that it was not that easy, at least initially, to identify the rating of all appliances). In any case, the figure indicates that it actually took about seven years to completely transform the market whereas the intention of the minimum standard had been to do this within about five years of the introduction of labelling.

φ EU energy labels rank appliances on an A to G scale according to their efficiencies (e.g. measured in terms of consumption per unit volume in the case of cold appliances) under standard test conditions. A-rated appliances are the most efficient and G-rated the least efficient.


35

Figure 28. Sales of cold appliances by energy class (A to G)

0 500

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year

Sale

s (th

ousa

nds) A

B C D E F G Unknown

Figures 29 to 32 look in more detail at the effect of the minimum standards for each appliance type, showing the percentage of appliance sales that met the minimum standard during each quarter leading up to, and beyond, its introduction. To produce these plots it has been assumed that the unknown category may be distributed pro-rata between the various energy classes. The figures confirm the general conclusions discussed above but they also indicate that certain appliances met the minimum standard in quarter 4 of 1999 rather better than others. It is also very clear from the figures, particularly Figure 31 which shows the data for upright freezers, that the market would not have been transformed in the absence of the minimum standard. It is also quite evident that manufacturers waited until the last possible moment before complying with the minimum standard. This is particularly clear in the case of upright freezers.

Clearly, now that the market has been transformed and almost all sales are of A, B and C rated appliances consideration needs to be given to revising the label to better distinguish between the range of appliance efficiencies and to provide the opportunity for further market transformation through the introduction of another minimum standard. At the time of writing, such issues were under discussion and it was anticipated that the label would be revised. As part of the discussions on the revision of the label, CECED (the European association of domestic appliance manufacturers) tabled a voluntary agreement to remove appliances with a C rating from the market by the end of quarter 1 2004. Other initiatives have also been under-way aimed at further improving the efficiency of the stock of cold appliances. In particular, the Energy Saving Trust has been running a scheme through the Standards of Performance to offer rebates for the purchase of more efficient A-rated appliances. The effect of this is shown in Figure 33.

It is evident from Figure 33 that sales of A-rated cold appliances during the first three years of the SoP scheme appear to have been essentially all associated with that scheme (bearing in mind the fact that the sales figures are not totally comprehensive so they may have actually been a little higher than shown). This clearly was important in giving the market a push towards higher efficiency appliances. Since then, sales of A-rated appliances have increased rapidly beyond those that can be attributed to the SoP scheme. This increase is perhaps related to the changes in the market that are required if the voluntary standard referred to above is to be met by quarter 1 2004, as well as to the anticipated introduction of a revised label in 2004.


36

Figure 29. Percentage of refrigerator sales at energy class C or better (minimum standard effective from Q4 1999)

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Q1

1996

Q2

1996

Q3

1996

Q4

1996

Q1

1997

Q2

1997

Q3

1997

Q4

1997

Q1

1998

Q2

1998

Q3

1998

Q4

1998

Q1

1999

Q2

1999

Q3

1999

Q4

1999

Q1

2000

Q2

2000

Q3

2000

Q4

2000

Q1

2001

Q2

2001

Q3

2001

Q4

2001

Minimum standard came into force

Figure 30. Percentage of fridge-freezer sales at energy class C or better (minimum standard effective from Q4 1999)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q1

1996

Q2

1996

Q3

1996

Q4

1996

Q1

1997

Q2

1997

Q3

1997

Q4

1997

Q1

1998

Q2

1998

Q3

1998

Q4

1998

Q1

1999

Q2

1999

Q3

1999

Q4

1999

Q1

2000

Q2

2000

Q3

2000

Q4

2000

Q1

2001

Q2

2001

Q3

2001

Q4

2001


Figure 31. Percentage of upright freezer sales at energy class C or better (minimum standard effective from Q4 1999)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q1

1996

Q2

1996

Q3

1996

Q4

1996

Q1

1997

Q2

1997

Q3

1997

Q4

1997

Q1

1998

Q2

1998

Q3

1998

Q4

1998

Q1

1999

Q2

1999

Q3

1999

Q4

1999

Q1

2000

Q2

2000

Q3

2000

Q4

2000

Q1

2001

Q2

2001

Q3

2001

Q4

2001



37

Figure 32. Percentage of chest freezer sales at energy class E or better (minimum standard effective from Q4 1999)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q1

1996

Q2

1996

Q3

1996

Q4

1996

Q1

1997

Q2

1997

Q3

1997

Q4

1997

Q1

1998

Q2

1998

Q3

1998

Q4

1998

Q1

1999

Q2

1999

Q3

1999

Q4

1999

Q1

2000

Q2

2000

Q3

2000

Q4

2000

Q1

2001

Q2

2001

Q3

2001

Q4

2001


Figure 33. Sales of A-rated cold appliances and the effect of SoP / EEC schemes

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 Year

Sale

s (th

ousa

nds)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Estim

ated

gra

nt e

xpen

ditu

re (£

M)

A-rated sales SoP / EEC installations SoP / EEC expenditure (£M)

Wet appliances

Figure 34 shows the data (supplied by the Energy Saving Trust) on sales of wet appliances (washing machines, dishwashers and washer-dryers) by energy band from 1996 (the energy label was introduced in October 1996) to 2001. Note that wet appliances are normally also defined as including tumble dryers but data for these were unfortunately not supplied. Note also that the data by efficiency band are incomplete for washer dryers and dishwashers, such figures only becoming available in quarter 1 1999 and quarter 3 1998 respectively (in contrast, the washing machine figures by band commence in quarter 3 1996).

It is for this reason that the “unknown” category in Figure 34 is so large in the early years. As for the cold appliances data, the sales figures are also not entirely comprehensive, but they should nonetheless be representative of the true situation.

For washing machines (which account for about 70% of the wet appliance sales), CECED voluntary agreements to remove efficiency classes E, F and G by the end of quarter 4 1997, and efficiency class D by the end of quarter 4 1999, have been in operation. No equivalent voluntary agreements appear to have been in operation for washer dryers and dishwashers. In addition, the Energy Saving Trust has been running a scheme (“Energy Efficiency Recom-mended”) to promote appliances with the highest efficiencies (i.e. A-rated appliances). It is clear from Figure 34 that these initiatives have successfully transformed the market.


38

Figure 34. Sales of wet appliances by energy class (A to G)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year

Sale

s (th

ousa

nds) A

B C D E F G Unknown

Figures 35 to 37 look in more detail at the results. Figure 35 shows the percentage of washing machine sales that met the voluntary minimum standards during each quarter leading up to, and beyond, their introduction. This shows that both minimum standards were very close to being met on time. However, the first minimum standard was clearly not particularly challenging as most sales were meeting this standard well before it was introduced. Even so, the first minimum standard actually took a couple of years extra to get up to 100% compliance. In contrast, the second minimum standard was more-or-less up to 100% compliance on time.

Figures 36 and 37 present the same information for washer dryers and dishwashers respect-tively. It is evident that there appears to have been no significant improvement in the energy efficiency of washer dryers in the absence of minimum standards. Dishwashers, however, do appear to have shown a slow but steady improvement since the end of 1999.

Figure 35. Percentage of washing machine sales at energy class D, and C, or better (voluntary minimum standards effective from Q4 1997 and Q4 1999)

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

Q4

1996

Q1

1997

Q2

1997

Q3

1997

Q4

1997

Q1

1998

Q2

1998

Q3

1998

Q4

1998

Q1

1999

Q2

1999

Q3

1999

Q4

1999

Q1

2000

Q2

2000

Q3

2000

Q4

2000

Q1

2001

Q2

2001

Q3

2001

Q4

2001

Sales at energy class C or better Sales at energy class D or better

Voluntary minimum standard came into force (D or better)

Voluntary minimum standard came into force (C or better)


39

Figure 36. Percentage of washer dryer sales at energy class D, and C, or better (voluntary minimum standards for washing machines effective from Q4 1997 and Q4 1999)

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Q1

1999

Q2

1999

Q3

1999

Q4

1999

Q1

2000

Q2

2000

Q3

2000

Q4

2000

Q1

2001

Q2

2001

Q3

2001

Q4

2001


Voluntary minimum standard for washing machines came into force (C or better)

Figure 37. Percentage of dishwasher sales at energy class D, and C, or better (voluntary minimum standards for washing machines effective from Q4 1997 and Q4 1999)

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Q3

1998

Q4

1998

Q1

1999

Q2

1999

Q3

1999

Q4

1999

Q1

2000

Q2

2000

Q3

2000

Q4

2000

Q1

2001

Q2

2001

Q3

2001

Q4

2001


Voluntary minimum standard for washing machines came into force (C or better)

Boilers

Figure 38 shows the available data on the sales of gas boilers by the SEDBUK efficiency bands.φ It is important to recognise that the figure shows data for years long before the SEDBUK methodology was developed. Thus, the distribution of sales between bands is, until recently, based on expert assessments made during the development of the boiler model under the Market Transformation Programme, the underlying sales data for this coming from BSRIA statistics updated with more recent market intelligence. The data in recent years, on the other hand, is based on actual sales figures provided by the SBGI, and the earlier figures have been adjusted to ensure consistency with these. This means that the data since about 1990 should be quite robust. Anything before this is necessarily a little speculative, although undoubtedly still realistic.

Figure 38. Gas boiler sales by efficiency band (A to G) φ There is currently no EU-wide labelling scheme for boilers. However, the UK has already defined its own label based on the seasonal efficiency assessment methodology known as SEDBUK. The standard EU approach of defining A to G bands has been adopted.


40

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Year

Sale

s (th

ousa

nds)

A B C D E F G

The Boiler Efficiency Directive of 1992 introduced boiler efficiency regulations that came into force in 1998. These required the removal of boilers having efficiencies below 70% (i.e. G-rated) from the market, with the exception of back boilers. As Figure 38 illustrates, this minimum standard target had a major effect on the market and such boilers were virtually eliminated by 1998. Therefore, it took about six years between the Directive being introduced and the minimum standard being met.

The Building Regulations revision in 2000 introduced a further minimum standard, requiring the elimination of boilers below D-rated (78% efficient) by August 2002, again with an excep-tion for back boilers. Once again, the market was able to adapt, this time rather more rapidly. The proposed minimum standard would have been common knowledge before the revision to the Building Regulations was published so in effect it probably took about three or four years for the market to adapt, rather than the two years implied by the respective dates of the Building Regulations revision and the minimum standard.

The next Building Regulations revision will require all boilers to be B-rated or better (i.e. better than 86% efficiency, which implies the use of condensing boilers). Again, there are likely to be exceptions (not all dwellings will be suitable for condensing boilers) but the majority will have to comply. If these Building Regulations were to come into force in 2007 this would imply that the market has about four years to adapt (from the time that the anticipated intentions of these Regulations became known). The experience of the last minimum standard suggests that this should be achievable, although undoubtedly challenging. As illustrated on Figure 39, which shows the percentage of boiler sales meeting the various minimum standards, about 10% of boiler sales already met this forthcoming minimum standard in 2002.

However, the boiler requirements have in fact been brought forward of the rest of the Building Regulations requirements, to April 2005, by statements made in the Energy White Paper. This then gives the market only two years to adapt. Clearly, meeting this target will be extremely difficult and it would therefore be unrealistic to anticipate full compliance being achieved in April 2005. Indeed, recent data for boiler sales indicates that the proportion represented by condensing boilers, although rising fast, at the end of 2004 had only reached about 30%. There is clearly no way that this can increase sufficiently to meet the Building Regulations target within just four months.

It is important to note that the Building Regulations requirements for boiler efficiencies apply to boiler replacements as well as to new installations. Thus, these requirements have a direct impact on the energy efficiency of the existing stock as well as the new stock. In general, however, the Building Regulations requirements only apply to new dwellings (the correspon-ding savings from which are considered in Section 2.4). Even so, the standards set by Building Regulations can come to be seen as the standards that existing homes should be re-furbished to, as the following discusses.


41

Figure 39. Percentage of gas boiler sales that are F-rated or better, D-rated or better and B-rated or better (respectively, the minimum standards effective in 1998, 2002 and as anticipated in the next Building Regulations revision)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Efficiency class F or better Efficiency class D or better Efficiency class B or better

Minimum standard to eliminate G-rated boilers

Minimum standard to eliminate boilers below D-rated

The effect of Building Regulations on existing homes

The thermal insulation requirements of the Building Regulations have been progressively increased. For example, the roof U-values required by the 1976, 1982 and 1990 Building Regulations were 0.6, 0.35 and 0.25 W/m2°C, respectively. In terms of an insulation thickness these requirements would have typically corresponded with about 50, 100 and 150 mm of mineral wool.

Figure 40 shows how the acquisitions of loft insulation in existing homes varied by the thickness achieved between 1975 and 2002. The dates from which the Building Regulations of 1976, 1982 and 1990 would have been effective (about two years after their introduction) are also shown.

It is clear from this that the requirement of the 1976 Regulations was not very onerous at all because this was what was already happening in the improvement of existing dwellings. As the Building Regulations were progressively revised, loft insulation acquisitions in existing homes generally increased in thickness to match – such that currently 100% of acquisitions meet or exceed the 1976 Regulations, about 90% meet or exceed the 1982 Regulations and about 70% meet or exceed the 1990 Regulations. This clearly shows that, for this measure at least, the standards in existing homes tend to follow the practice that is established in new homes via the Building Regulations. Figure 40. Percentage of loft insulation acquisitions achieving at least 50, 75, 100, 125 and 150 mm depth

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

50mm or more 75mm or more 100mm or more 125mm or more 150mm or more

50mm 100mm 150mm Effective depth requirements introduced by the Building Regulations of 1976, 1982 and 1990.


42

Conclusions on the effectiveness of energy labelling, minimum standards and Building Regulations

The preceding analyses have indicated the following approximate periods of time elapsing between a minimum standard being proposed, being formally introduced and being fully com-plied with. Table 4. Time elapsing between minimum standard being proposed, introduced and complied with

Appliance type Time to minimum standard being formally introduced and % compliance at this time

Time to minimum standard being fully complied with

Refrigerators 5 years 90% 6-7 years

Fridge-freezers 5 years 84% 6-7 years

Upright freezers 5 years 78% 7 years

Chest freezers 5 years 74% 7 years

Washing machines (first voluntary minimum standard) 1 year 99% 3 years

Washing machines (second voluntary minimum standard) 3 years 98% 3.5 years

Gas boilers (EU boiler efficiency regulations) 6 years 98% 6 -7 years

Gas boilers (revision of Building Regulations) 3 - 4 years 95% 4 – 5 years

Broadly speaking, these results indicate that it generally takes about 5 years between a minimum standard being proposed and being formally introduced. At the time of introduction, compliance will be high but will not generally be full. It can be expected to take one or two years more before full compliance is achieved. Nonetheless, these results demonstrate that minimum standards are a powerful means of transforming the market in a relatively short period of time.

The high levels of compliance observed for washing machines are likely to be the result of the minimum standard being voluntary on the part of the manufacturers – i.e. standards were probably set that they knew that they would be able to meet without any difficulty. Mandatory standards are probably more difficult to achieve, as indicated above by the lower levels of compliance at the time of introduction of the minimum standard.

Energy labelling alone, in the absence of minimum standards, does not appear to have much effect at all on the market. Indeed, it was very clear from some of the results (particularly for fridge-freezers and upright freezers) that the energy performance of appliances would not have improved significantly without the minimum standards.

Building Regulations provide a convenient mechanism for introducing minimum standards relating to the building and its integral systems. Such standards traditionally only apply to new dwellings but recent revisions of the Building Regulations have begun applying certain require-ments to refurbishments, including those relating to boiler efficiencies where the minimum standard has dramatically transformed the market in quite a short time, and looks set to do so again. Even standards that are set by Building Regulations and only apply to new dwellings tend to be seen as good practice in the improvement of existing dwellings – and are often applied in such dwellings, as seen from the results on loft insulation.

2.4 ENERGY AND CARBON SAVINGS FROM ENERGY EFFICIENCY POLICIES Loft insulation grants

Table B4 in Appendix B summarises the results of calculations of energy and carbon savings due to loft insulation grants. For years up to 1999/2000 the results are more-or-less as reported previously (1), although there are some small differences due to the use of new data on the numbers of grants under the Energy Efficiency Standards of Performance schemes,


43

and the use of updated fuel mix data (and hence slightly revised carbon emission factors) derived during the preparation of the Domestic Energy Fact File 2003 (4).

As Table B4 shows, the energy savings in 2001/02 due to loft insulation grants amount to about 94.5 PJ/year, equivalent to about 1.65 MtC/year. These values are reduced by about 44% (to 52.5 PJ/year and 0.9 MtC/year respectively) when free riders are allowed for. Cumulatively, over the period 1978 to 2001/02 the grants have saved about 1675 PJ and 30 MtC, these figures being reduced by about 41% when free riders are removed.

Over this period, the energy saving is worth about £9.5bn in 1999/2000 money values (£5.6bn allowing for free riders) which may be compared with an overall expenditure of about £1.1bn. Overall the net cost per tonne of carbon saved is shown to be -£279/tC (i.e. a net benefit of £279/tC). This reduces to -£253/tC when free riders are allowed for.

Cavity wall insulation grants

Table B5 in Appendix B presents the same information as Table B4, but for cavity wall insulation grants. Again, the results up to 1999/2000 are almost the same as reported previously (1) aside from small differences that have occurred for the same sort of reasons.

The energy savings in 2001/02 due to cavity wall insulation grants amount to about 13.5 PJ/year, equivalent to 0.27 MtC/year (11.5 PJ/year and 2.3 MtC/year allowing for free riders). Cumulatively, the grants have saved about 45 PJ and 1.2 MtC (39 PJ and 1 MtC allowing for free riders). The cumulative costs are still about 10% higher than the cumulative savings so the net cost per tonne of carbon saved is currently just positive at £16/tC (£43/tC allowing for free riders). Clearly, this will become negative very soon and should, in fact, have done so in 2002/03 (see Figures 41 and 42).

Condensing boiler grants

Table B6 in Appendix B summarises the savings for condensing boiler grants. Again, the figures to 1999/2000 are almost identical to those reported previously (1).

The energy savings in 2001/02 due to condensing boiler grants amount to about 2.3 PJ/year, equivalent to 0.034 MtC/year (1.2 PJ/year and 0.018 MtC/year, allowing for free riders). Cumulatively, the grants have saved 5.2 PJ and 0.076 MtC (2.7 PJ and 0.04 MtC allowing for free riders). Cumulative costs still heavily outweigh cumulative savings so the net cost per tonne of carbon saved is positive at £260/tC (about £760/tC allowing for free riders. It will be noted that the net cost per tonne of carbon saved rose between 1999/2000 and 2000/01, before falling again in 2001/02.

The reason for this is that there was a large increase in the number of grants between 1999/2000 and 2000/01 so there was a large jump in the grant expenditure (the actual amount in 2000/01 is not well known for the reasons explained earlier, but the regression-based estimate must be about right). In contrast, the savings take time to accumulate and they could not match the increased expenditure within a single year, although two years were sufficient to do so. In effect, the large expenditure rise in 2000/01 shifted the net costs characteristic for this measure onto a different curve (see Figures 41 and 42) slightly delaying the time that it will take to reach the situation where the net costs become negative.

Loft insulation, cavity wall insulation and condensing boiler grants combined and compared

Table B7 in Appendix B combines the information in Tables B4, B5 and B6, indicating that currently the housing stock consumes about 110 PJ/year less than it would otherwise do due to the grants for loft insulation, cavity wall insulation and condensing boilers. This corresponds to a carbon emission saving of about 1.95 MtC/year. Allowing for free riders the savings are around 40% lower at about 65 PJ/year and 1.15 MtC/year. Cumulatively, the grants have saved 1725 PJ, or almost 31.5 MtC (1024 PJ and 18.7 MtC allowing for free riders). The overall net cost per tonne of carbon saved is -£267/tC (-£235/tC allowing for free riders) indicating that not only have the grants saved a lot but that they have done so very cost-effectively.

Figure 41 compares the net cost per tonne of carbon saved for the grants for each of the three measures, plotted against the number of years since the inception of the grants for the individual measures). Solid points on this chart correspond to historical information. Open points correspond to projections based on considering the grants up to 2001/02 only and assuming that the annual savings from these would repeat each year so the savings would accumulate, but the corresponding expenditure would remain at its 2001/02 level. This


44

indicates that the cost per tonne of carbon saved for cavity wall insulation grants should become negative in year 9 of the grants (i.e. in 2002/03). For condensing boilers it will be in year 9 also when this happens (this being 2004/05). This is later than determined previously for the reasons discussed in the previous section.

Figure 42 is the same as Figure 41 except that it allows for free riders. This suggests that the net cost per tonne saved will still become negative in year 9 for cavity wall insulation (because there are relatively few free riders for this measure) but for condensing boilers it could be year 13 (i.e. 2008/09) before this happens.

Finally, Figure 43 presents the updated plot of the annual energy savings that can be attribu-ted to the grants, for all three measures combined, against the cumulative expenditure on the grants. As before, two lines are plotted corresponding to the cases where free riders are either included or excluded. The relevant data for this graph is in Table B7 in Appendix B.

Figure 41. Net cost of carbon savings due to grants (not allowing for free-riders)

Net cost of carbon savings due to grants (not allowing for free-riders)

-500

-250

0

250

500

750

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Years since inception of the grants

Net

cos

t of c

arbo

n sa

ving

(£/tC

)

Loft insulation


Condensing boilers

£1396/tCin year one

Figure 42. Net cost of carbon savings due to grants (allowing for free-riders)

Net cost of carbon savings due to grants (allowing for free-riders)

-500

-250

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Years since inception of the grants

Net

cos

t of c

arbo

n sa

ving

(£/tC

)

Loft insulation


Condensing boilers

£4875/tCin year one


45

Figure 43. Annual energy saving related to cumulative grant expenditure (based on actual data relating to grant schemes for the period 1978 to FY 2001/2002)

R2 = 0.9921

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Cumulative grant expenditure (£M)

Ann

ual e

nerg

y sa

ving

(PJ)

Not allowing for free-riders Allowing for free riders

Gradient = 0.033 PJ/£M

Bearing in mind that the two extreme right-hand points on each line refer to 2000/01 and 2001/02 for which grant expenditure data can only be estimated based on the regressions contained in the previous work, it is no real surprise to see that the recent gradient on which policy scenarios have previously been based is still more-or-less the same as determined before (0.033 PJ/£M now as opposed to 0.03 PJ/£M previously).

Savings from energy labelling and minimum standards for appliances and boilers

Methodology for appliances

In the following, savings are assessed only for appliances for which minimum standards have been combined with energy labelling. It is assumed, as concluded in Section 2.3, that energy labelling in the absence of minimum standards does not yield significant improvements. The basic methodology is the same for each of the appliances considered and is discussed below.

The savings determined are the difference between the estimated energy use of appliances sold since the time when the minimum standards were proposed and what those appliances would have consumed if there had been no improvement since that time. The point in time at which the minimum standards were proposed is rather difficult to define precisely but it would undoubtedly have been around the mid-1990s. In practice, 1996 has to be used as the reference point because sales data by energy band only began being collected from this year.

It is important to note that this calculation makes no allowance for savings being lost due to the phenomenon whereby the reduced level of internal gains has to be made up by additional energy use of the heating system. So the calculated savings presented here probably repre-sent an upper limit for what labelling and minimum standards have achieved for these appliances. Balancing this to some extent, however, is the fact that the sales data on which the analyses are based are not totally comprehensive, so a (relatively small) part of the savings will have been missed by the calculations.

Calculating the average energy use of appliances sold rests on knowing the sales within each of the energy bands and the relative energy use of products in those bands, as defined by the efficiency index for that particular category of appliance, on which the label is based. In fact, the analyses and the results presented here build on previously undertaken work in this area, aimed at assessing the feasibility of developing the BREDEM model to allow energy savings from efficient appliances to be directly calculated by the model (these procedures are likely to be incorporated in the next updates to the BREDEM specifications, probably to be published in 2005). In turn, that work was based on energy use information for the individual appliances extracted from Market Transformation programme data, as well as on the appliance sales data obtained from the EST.


46

Results for appliances

The detailed sales data and the associated calculation results for the five appliances considered (refrigerators, fridge-freezers, upright freezers, chest freezers and washing machines) are presented in Tables B8 to B12 in Appendix B. Table 5 below summarises the energy and carbon savings across all five appliances. It will immediately be noted that the savings are very small in comparison with those discussed for grants. This is, of course, to be expected since the labels have only been operating for a few years, whereas the grants discussed earlier have been running for many years. Table 5. Savings in the stated years from labelling and minimum standards for five major appliances (refrigerators, fridge-freezers, upright freezers, chest freezers and washing machines)

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total

PJ/year 0.10 0.37 1.12 2.47 4.42 8.5

MtC/year 0.003 0.013 0.039 0.087 0.173 0.32

Methodology for boilers

The basic methodology for boilers is similar to that for appliances. The data in this case come from the boiler model that has been developed under the Market Transformation programme, together with more recent data on boiler sales from the SBGI (which will in due course be incorporated into the boiler model).

The sales data by efficiency band since the minimum standards were proposed are used to calculate an average new boiler efficiency in each year. In the absence of the minimum stan-dards it is assumed that the average boiler efficiency would have remained at the level that applied when the minimum standards were proposed. These boiler efficiencies are then applied to the estimated useful energy requirement for space and water heating in a typical home. This then leads to two sets of energy use figures from which savings can be deduced. The time at which the first minimum standard was proposed is taken as being 1992, the year in which the Boiler Efficiency Directive was introduced.

It is important to note that the savings thus calculated implicitly include the savings that have already been calculated and ascribed to condensing boiler grants. To avoid double counting these grants savings will need to be subtracted off the calculated labelling and minimum standards savings.

Results for boilers

Table B13 in Appendix B provides the detailed sales data and the associated savings calculation results. Table 6 below summarises the energy and carbon savings. It will be noted that these savings are considerably greater than those for labelling and minimum standards for appliances even though they span a fairly similar period of time. This simply reflects the fact that space and water heating represents the majority of the energy use of typical homes so any measure that improves the efficiency with which that service is supplied will inevitably achieve quite large savings. It will also be noted that allowing for the double counting effect referred to above actually does not make a very large difference. This simply indicates that the sales of condensing boilers, and hence the corresponding numbers of grants, are still relatively small compared to the overall number of boiler sales. Table 6. Savings in the stated year from labelling and minimum standards for boilers

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total

PJ/year* 0.61 1.56 3.15 5.60 8.53 11.90 15.86 19.65 24.73 91.6

PJ/year 0.61 1.56 3.15 5.70 8.78 12.35 16.56 21.06 27.03 96.8

MtC/year* 0.009 0.023 0.046 0.082 0.125 0.174 0.231 0.286 0.363 1.34

MtC/year 0.009 0.023 0.046 0.084 0.129 0.181 0.241 0.307 0.397 1.42 * deducting savings already ascribed to grants for condensing boilers


47

Savings from improvements to Building Regulations

Methodology

Building Regulations have been discussed earlier largely in relation to the minimum standards that they have introduced for boiler efficiencies. But it is possible to consider and quantify the effect of Building Regulations more widely than this. Knowing the numbers of new homes built in each year, and the respective elemental insulation standards that each successive regulation introduced, it is possible to estimate energy savings relative to what those homes would have consumed if built to the standards that might have applied otherwise. For this purpose it is assumed that the first regulations that really had any impact on energy efficiency were those introduced in 1976, which would have become fully effective in about 1978. So the “standards that might have applied otherwise” correspond to the requirements of the 1965 Building Regulations.

Savings calculated in the manner outlined above have been determined by considering a typical dwelling built to the standards of successive Building Regulations. The resulting savings have then been scaled up to national figures according to the numbers of homes com-pleted in each year. Note that these calculations take account of the fact that the mix of heating systems in new homes differs from that in the stock as a whole, which in turn affects the average carbon emission factor and hence the carbon savings. In fact, however, the overall emission factors generally turn out to be not that different in practice. This is because the reduction in emission factor due to the higher proportion of homes using gas is balanced by an increase from the higher proportion using electricity.

The calculations take account of the changing mix of heating systems as already indicated, and this means that improvements in heating efficiency are automatically included. However, in order to avoid double counting of those savings from improved boiler efficiencies in new homes that have already been included within the savings from labelling, the gas boiler effici-encies that have been applied from 1993 onwards have been capped at the 1992 efficiency.

Results

Table B14 in Appendix B presents the data on the numbers of completions and the correspon-ding energy and carbon savings in each year that may be ascribed to Building Regulations. Overall, the savings in 2001 due to Building Regulations amount to about 137 PJ/year or 2.5 MtC. Cumulatively, the Building Regulations have saved about 1660 PJ or 32.5 MtC up to 2001. It will be noted that these figures are quite similar to those discussed earlier for grants which have, of course, been in operation over much the same period of time. The savings relative to other policies are discussed further in the following.

Conclusions on savings from grants, energy labelling and Building Regulations

Table B15 in Appendix B brings together the results of the energy and carbon savings calculations for grants, energy labelling and Building Regulations that have been discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Note that the grants figures discussed here are the full savings, excluding any adjustments to allow for free riders. Note also that the slight time shift between the various analyses (i.e. some analyses having been done on a financial year basis and some on a calendar year basis, depending upon the available data) has been ignored. Thus, 2001 actually means 2001/02 in some cases. Clearly this slight inconsistency is of little consequence when assessing the effects of the different policies over the long term, which is what the table does.

The results for the energy savings are presented more clearly in Figure 44. Those for carbon savings are shown in Figure 45.

It is clear from Figure 44 that the savings in PJ/year for grants and for Building Regulations have grown steadily over the years and have broadly been of quite similar magnitude. From the early 1990s the savings from labelling of boilers have been growing quite rapidly and are now becoming significant. Savings from labelling of appliances have only been accumulating since the mid-1990s and so it is not surprising to see that they are still relatively insignificant in comparison to the other energy efficiency policies. Overall, for the policies considered, the savings being achieved in 2001 amount to about 275 PJ/year, which represents around 14% of the current housing stock energy use.

Figure 45 shows the same information in terms of carbon savings in MtC/year and exactly the same general comments apply. The only additional point worth noting is that the savings for labelling of appliances become slightly more significant, and those from labelling of boilers


48

slightly less significant, when looked at in terms of carbon. This is because of the difference between the carbon emission factors for electricity and gas. Overall, for the policies con-sidered, the savings being achieved in 2001 amount to about 5 MtC/year, representing about 13% of the current carbon emissions associated with the energy use of the housing stock.

Figure 44. Energy savings due to quantifiable domestic sector energy efficiency policies

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year

Pj/y

ear

Building Regulations Grants Boiler labelling & minimum standards Labelling & minimum standards for cold and wet appliances

Figure 45. Carbon savings due to quantifiable domestic sector energy efficiency policies

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year

MtC

/yea

r

Building Regulations Grants Boiler labelling & minimum standards Labelling & minimum standards for cold and wet appliances

What these figures emphasise is the fact that it takes time for savings to accumulate so it is important to take a long-term view when developing energy efficiency policies. The figures represent the culmination of all the preceding analyses, which in turn have depended upon the availability of a lot of detailed data and associated modelling tools. There were some gaps in the data for grants, explained in the notes under Tables B1, B2 and B3, but it has been possible to overcome these by introducing appropriate interpolation and assumptions thereby producing a reasonably complete picture.

The study has demonstrated that the regular collection of data, together with associated modelling and analysis work, is of key importance for the monitoring of the effects of energy efficiency policies. The findings help with the development of future scenarios taking account of energy efficiency policies that are either already in place or yet to be implemented, as discussed in Part 3 of this report.


49

References

1. L D Shorrock, J Henderson, J I Utley and G A Walters. Carbon emission reductions from energy efficiency improvements to the UK housing stock. BRE Report BR 435. December 2001.

2. Warm Front: Helping to combat fuel poverty. National Audit Office. June 2003. 3. G Henderson, D Staniaszek, B Anderson, M Phillipson. Energy savings from insulation

improvements in electrically heated dwellings in the UK. In Vol. 1, Proceedings of ECEEE Summer Study. June 2003.

4. L D Shorrock and J I Utley. Domestic Energy Fact File 2003. BRE Report BR 457. May 2003.

50

Notes

: To

ensu

re th

at no

data

are o

mitte

d by t

he tr

ansit

ion fr

om ca

lenda

r yea

rs to

finan

cial y

ears

"199

1/92"

actua

lly re

fers t

o the

perio

d Jan

1991

to M

ar 19

92 in

clusiv

e.

Nu

mber

s sho

wn sh

aded

in gr

ey ar

e esti

mates

deter

mine

d as f

ollow

s:

The H

ome E

nerg

y Effic

iency

Sch

eme f

igure

for 2

000/2

001 i

s inte

rpola

ted

Gr

ant e

xpen

ditur

es in

2000

/2001

and 2

001/2

002 a

re es

timate

d usin

g the

prev

ious r

egre

ssion

of gr

ants

again

st ex

pend

iture

s (wh

ich, b

y defi

nition

, refe

rs to

1999

/2000

mon

ey va

lues).

A

ppen

dix

B: T

able

s

Tabl

e B

1. L

oft i

nsul

atio

n in

exi

stin

g ho

mes

– a

cqui

sitio

ns a

nd g

rant

s

Ho

mes

Insu

latio

n Sc

hem

e En

ergy

Con

serv

atio

n Pr

ogra

mm

e Ho

me E

nerg

y Effi

cienc

y Sc

hem

e St

anda

rds o

f Per

form

ance

Al

l sch

emes

Year

Gr

ants

Gran

t ex

pend

iture

(£

M)

Gran

ts Gr

ant

expe

nditu

re

(£M)

Gr

ants

Gran

t ex

pend

iture

(£

M)

Gran

ts Gr

ant

expe

nditu

re

(£M)

Gr

ants

Gran

t ex

pend

iture

(£

M)

GDP

defla

tor

(199

0=10

0)

GDP

adjus

ted

gran

t exp

endit

ure

(£M)

(199

9/200

0 va

lues)

Acqu

isitio

ns

1974

0

0.0

21.5

0.0

2780

00

1975

0

0.0

27.4

0.0

3250

00

1976

0

0.0

31.5

0.0

1890

00

1977

0

0.0

35.9

0.0

1870

00

1978

94

493

3.8

1390

99

5.6

2335

92

9.4

40.0

31.5

6240

00

1979

42

1555

16

.5 63

2163

31

.3

10

5371

8 47

.8 45

.8 13

9.8

7910

00

1980

33

2628

15

.3 45

4669

28

.2

78

7297

43

.5 54

.7 10

6.5

6440

00

1981

36

8838

23

.6 18

4429

11

.2

55

3267

34

.8 61

.0 76

.4 86

3000

19

82

4003

46

27.3

2716

25

16.0

6719

71

43.3

65.6

88.4

8530

00

1983

38

7861

27

.6 26

3215

24

.4

65

1076

52

.0 69

.1 10

0.8

6090

00

1984

34

5203

23

.6 15

2243

17

.8

49

7446

41

.4 72

.2 76

.8 51

7000

19

85

4109

03

28.6

7913

7 15

.8

49

0040

44

.4 76

.3 77

.9 58

1000

19

86

3975

99

27.3

8256

7 10

.8

48

0166

38

.1 78

.8 64

.7 66

4000

19

87

3294

82

21.8

6952

2 8.4

39

9004

30

.2 82

.8 48

.8 50

9000

19

88

1437

49

16.0

6058

2 8.3

20

4331

24

.3 87

.8 37

.1 35

8000

19

89

5826

3 6.5

32

609

4.5

9087

2 11

.0 94

.0 15

.6 35

1000

19

90

2091

9 2.3

11

708

1.6

3262

7 3.9

10

0.0

5.3

2690

00

1991

/92

438

0.0

245

0.0

5326

8 8.4

53

951

8.5

107.3

10

.6 46

5000

19

92/93

61

982

10.9

6198

2 10

.9 11

1.6

13.1

3840

00

1993

/94

8202

8 13

.4

82

028

13.4

114.6

15

.6 37

8000

19

94/95

13

3906

26

.0 12

226

2.2

1461

32

28.2

116.2

32

.5 43

2000

19

95/96

17

7335

34

.4 23

800

5.0

2011

35

39.4

119.5

44

.2 43

6000

19

96/97

13

2096

25

.6 28

034

4.1

1601

30

29.7

123.4

32

.2 42

8000

19

97/98

82

856

20.1

1655

6 2.6

99

412

22.6

126.9

23

.9 32

4000

19

98/99

71

410

16.0

1758

9 5.2

88

999

21.2

130.6

21

.7 35

7000

19

99/00

72

666

15.6

1758

9 1.0

90

255

16.6

133.9

16

.6 42

1000

20

00/01

83

583

39

988

12

3571

136.7

25

.6 44

2000

20

01/02

94

500

39

988

13

4488

140.1

27

.8 37

3000

51

Tabl

e B

2. C

avity

wal

l ins

ulat

ion

in e

xist

ing

hom

es –

acq

uisi

tions

and

gra

nts

Hom

e Ene

rgy E

fficie

ncy S

chem

e ES

T Ca

shba

ck S

chem

e / o

ther

s St

anda

rds o

f Per

form

ance

/ EEC

Al

l sch

emes

Year

Gr

ants

Gran

t exp

endit

ure

(£M)

Gr

ants

Gran

t exp

endit

ure

(£M)

Gr

ants

Gran

t exp

endit

ure

(£M)

Gr

ants

Gran

t exp

endit

ure

(£M)

GD

P de

flator

(1

990=

100)

GDP

adjus

ted

gran

t exp

endit

ure

(£M)

(199

9/200

0 va

lues)

Acqu

isitio

ns

1990

/1991

0

0.0

101.8

0.0

81

000

1991

/1992

0

0.0

108.1

0.0

82

000

1992

/1993

0

0.0

111.6

0.0

77

000

1993

/1994

0

0.0

114.6

0.0

96

000

1994

/1995

20

784

3.4

2078

4 3.4

11

6.2

4.0

1220

00

1995

/1996

38

590

6.5

3859

0 6.5

11

9.5

7.3

1270

00

1996

/1997

30

000

7.3

3020

5 5.3

60

205

12.6

123.4

13

.7 19

5000

19

97/19

98

4028

2 11

.1 45

000

6.8

3432

4 6.2

11

9606

24

.1 12

6.9

25.4

1870

00

1998

/1999

97

845

25.8

2274

7 5.5

17

559

5.5

1381

51

36.7

130.6

37

.7 21

8000

19

99/20

00

1261

30

32.7

1905

8 4.9

17

559

5.5

1627

47

43.1

133.9

43

.1 22

9000

20

00/20

01

1127

40

11

970

50

345

17

5055

136.7

44

.5 23

2000

20

01/20

02

9935

0

4882

5034

5

1545

77

14

0.1

39.3

2050

00

Notes

: Num

bers

show

n sha

ded i

n gre

y are

estim

ates d

eterm

ined a

s foll

ows:

HE

ES gr

ants

in 20

00/20

01 ar

e not

know

n - va

lue sh

own i

s an i

nterp

olated

figur

e

ES

T Ca

shba

ck S

chem

e / ot

her g

rants

in 20

00/20

01 ar

e not

know

n - va

lue sh

own i

s inte

rpola

ted

Gran

t exp

endit

ures

in 20

00/20

01 an

d 200

1/200

2 are

estim

ated u

sing t

he pr

eviou

s reg

ress

ion of

gran

ts ag

ainst

expe

nditu

res (

which

, by d

efinit

ion, r

efers

to 19

99/20

00 m

oney

value

s).

52

Tabl

e B

3. C

onde

nsin

g bo

ilers

– s

ales

and

gra

nts

Hom

e Ene

rgy E

fficie

ncy S

chem

e ES

T Ca

shba

ck S

chem

e St

anda

rds o

f Per

form

ance

Al

l sch

emes

Year

Gr

ants

Gran

t ex

pend

iture

(£

M)

Gran

ts Gr

ant

expe

nditu

re

(£M)

Gr

ants

Gran

t ex

pend

iture

(£

M)

Gran

ts Gr

ant

expe

nditu

re

(£M)

GD

P de

flator

(1

990=

100)

GDP

adjus

ted

gran

t exp

endit

ure

(£M)

(199

9/200

0 va

lues)

Total

sales

Estim

ated s

ales

into e

xistin

g ho

mes

1990

/1991

0

0.0

0

0 0.0

10

1.8

0.0

7250

61

63

1991

/1992

0

0.0

0

0 0.0

10

8.1

0.0

8000

68

00

1992

/1993

0

0.0

0

0 0.0

11

1.6

0.0

9000

76

50

1993

/1994

0

0.0

0

0 0.0

11

4.6

0.0

1450

0 12

325

1994

/1995

0

0.0

0

0 0.0

11

6.2

0.0

2125

0 18

063

1995

/1996

0

0.0

0

0 0.0

11

9.5

0.0

2225

0 18

690

1996

/1997

60

00

2.3

0

6000

2.3

12

3.4

2.5

3325

0 28

263

1997

/1998

90

00

2.3

0

9000

2.3

12

6.9

2.4

3900

0 33

540

1998

/1999

12

110

3.4

0

1211

0 3.4

13

0.6

3.5

4750

0 41

325

1999

/2000

15

540

4.5

0

1554

0 4.5

13

3.9

4.5

5875

0 51

700

2000

/2001

10

620

32

538

43

158

13

6.7

12.8

7563

2 68

069

2001

/2002

21

240

32

538

53

778

14

0.1

16.0

1035

05

9315

5 No

tes:

Numb

ers s

hown

shad

ed in

grey

are e

stima

tes de

termi

ned a

s foll

ows:

Home

Ene

rgy E

fficien

cy S

chem

e figu

re in

2001

/2002

take

n to b

e 58%

of th

e 366

20 ho

mes t

hat r

eceiv

ed ga

s cen

tral h

eatin

g und

er H

EES

in tha

t yea

r. (5

8% is

a fig

ure p

rovid

ed by

defra

repr

esen

ting t

he

know

n pro

portio

n of in

stalla

tions

that

used

cond

ensin

g boil

ers b

etwee

n Jun

e 200

0 and

Sep

tembe

r 200

2)

Home

Ene

rgy E

fficien

cy S

chem

e figu

re in

2000

/2001

take

n to b

e half

of th

at in

2001

/2002

(bas

ed on

the f

act th

at the

new

sche

me di

d not

start

until

well i

nto 20

00/20

01 [J

une]

and i

t wou

ld ine

vitab

ly ha

ve

taken

some

time t

o rea

ch its

norm

al op

erati

ng le

vel fo

r this

newl

y intr

oduc

ed m

easu

re)

Gr

ant e

xpen

ditur

es in

2000

/2001

and 2

001/2

002 a

re es

timate

d usin

g the

prev

ious r

egre

ssion

of gr

ants

again

st ex

pend

iture

s (wh

ich, b

y defi

nition

, refe

rs to

1999

/2000

mon

ey va

lues).

Sales

to ex

isting

home

s in 2

000/2

001 a

nd 20

01/20

02 ar

e tak

en to

be 90

% of

all s

ales (

base

d on t

he ob

serve

d rati

os fo

r ear

lier y

ears)

53

Tabl

e B

4. S

umm

ary

of e

nerg

y an

d ca

rbon

sav

ings

due

to lo

ft in

sula

tion

gran

ts

Not a

llowi

ng fo

r fre

e-rid

ers

Allo

wing

for f

ree-

rider

s

Cu

mulat

ive

acqu

isitio

ns

from

start

of gr

ants

Cumu

lative

gr

ants

Cumu

lative

no

n fre

e-rid

er

gran

ts

Cumu

lative

gr

ant

expe

nditu

re

(£M

1999

/2000

)

Savin

gs

in tha

t ye

ar

(PJ)

Cumu

lative

sa

vings

(P

J)

Savin

gs

in tha

t ye

ar

(MtC

)

Cumu

lative

sa

vings

(M

tC)

Cumu

lative

co

st sa

ving

(£M

1999

/2000

)

Savin

g/co

st ra

tio

Cost

per

tonne

of

carb

on

save

d (£

/tC)

Net c

ost

per t

onne

of

carb

on

save

d (£

/tC)

Savin

gs

in tha

t ye

ar

(PJ)

Cumu

lative

sa

vings

(P

J)

Savin

gs

in tha

t ye

ar

(MtC

)

Cumu

lative

sa

vings

(M

tC)

Cumu

lative

co

st sa

ving

(£M

1999

/2000

)

Savin

g/co

st ra

tio

Cost

per

tonne

of

carb

on

save

d (£

/tC)

Net c

ost

per t

onne

of

carb

on

save

d (£

/tC)

1978

62

4000

23

3592

13

7157

31

.5 3.3

3.3

0.0

7 0.0

7 19

.5 0.6

2 45

1 17

2 1.9

1.9

0.04

0.04

11.5

0.36

768

489

1979

14

1500

0 12

8731

0 88

4041

17

1.2

17.9

21.2

0.38

0.45

114.7

0.6

7 37

8 12

5 12

.3 14

.20.2

6 0.3

076

.8 0.4

556

4 31

1 19

80

2059

000

2074

607

1364

504

277.7

28

.5 49

.8 0.5

8 1.0

3 26

1.9

0.94

269

1518

.8 33

.00.3

8 0.6

917

3.7

0.63

405

152

1981

29

2200

0 26

2787

4 16

8366

4 35

4.1

36.1

85.9

0.71

1.74

472.9

1.3

4 20

3 -6

823

.2 56

.20.4

5 1.1

430

9.0

0.87

311

40

1982

37

7500

0 32

9984

5 20

8477

3 44

2.5

45.9

131.8

0.8

8 2.6

2 78

5.8

1.78

169

-131

29.0

85.2

0.55

1.69

506.6

1.1

426

1 -3

8 19

83

4384

000

3950

921

2429

015

543.3

55

.5 18

7.2

1.04

3.66

1190

.1 2.1

9 14

9 -1

7734

.0 11

9.20.6

4 2.3

375

4.9

1.39

233

-91

1984

49

0100

0 44

4836

7 26

9115

7 62

0.1

62.1

249.3

1.1

3 4.7

9 16

36.8

2.64

130

-212

37.5

156.8

0.68

3.02

1025

.0 1.6

520

6 -1

34

1985

54

8200

0 49

3840

7 29

4240

3 69

8.0

67.5

316.8

1.2

7 6.0

6 21

11.5

3.02

115

-233

40.3

197.1

0.76

3.77

1308

.5 1.8

718

5 -1

62

1986

61

4600

0 54

1857

3 32

2415

9 76

2.8

72.6

389.4

1.3

7 7.4

3 26

12.1

3.42

103

-249

43.3

240.4

0.82

4.59

1607

.2 2.1

116

6 -1

84

1987

66

5500

0 58

1757

7 34

7349

1 81

1.6

77.1

466.5

1.4

5 8.8

8 31

14.6

3.84

91

-259

46.1

286.5

0.87

5.46

1907

.7 2.3

514

9 -2

01

1988

70

1300

0 60

2190

8 35

6303

3 84

8.7

79.4

545.8

1.4

7 10

.35

3605

.4 4.2

5 82

-2

6647

.1 33

3.60.8

7 6.3

321

99.0

2.59

134

-213

19

89

7364

000

6112

780

3605

579

864.3

80

.5 62

6.3

1.47

11.82

40

93.5

4.74

73

-273

47.6

381.2

0.87

7.20

2487

.9 2.8

812

0 -2

25

1990

76

3300

0 61

4540

7 36

2189

6 86

9.5

80.9

707.2

1.4

7 13

.29

4580

.6 5.2

7 65

-2

7947

.8 42

9.00.8

7 8.0

727

75.9

3.19

108

-236

19

91/92

80

9800

0 61

9935

8 36

4294

9 88

0.2

81.5

788.7

1.4

8 14

.77

5068

.9 5.7

6 60

-2

8448

.1 47

7.10.8

7 8.9

530

63.9

3.48

98

-244

19

92/93

84

8200

0 62

6134

1 36

6446

1 89

3.2

82.3

871.0

1.4

8 16

.25

5540

.9 6.2

0 55

-2

8648

.3 52

5.50.8

7 9.8

233

41.3

3.74

91

-249

19

93/94

88

6000

0 63

4336

9 36

9815

0 90

8.8

83.2

954.1

1.4

4 17

.70

6007

.6 6.6

1 51

-2

8848

.7 57

4.20.8

5 10

.6636

14.6

3.98

85

-254

19

94/95

92

9200

0 64

8950

1 37

4361

2 94

1.3

84.8

1039

.0 1.4

8 19

.18

6503

.4 6.9

1 49

-2

9049

.2 62

3.40.8

6 11

.5239

02.3

4.15

82

-257

19

95/96

97

2800

0 66

9063

6 38

0787

4 98

5.5

87.1

1126

.1 1.5

2 20

.70

7002

.9 7.1

1 48

-2

9149

.9 67

3.30.8

7 12

.3941

88.7

4.25

80

-258

19

96/97

10

1560

00

6850

766

3868

166

1017

.8 88

.8 12

14.9

1.53

22.23

74

66.7

7.34

46

-290

50.6

723.9

0.87

13.27

4452

.9 4.3

877

-2

59

1997

/98

1048

0000

69

5017

8 38

9358

1 10

41.7

89.9

1304

.8 1.5

3 23

.76

7934

.1 7.6

2 44

-2

9050

.9 77

4.80.8

7 14

.1347

17.4

4.53

74

-260

19

98/99

10

8370

00

7039

177

3915

238

1063

.4 90

.9 13

95.7

1.56

25.32

83

71.7

7.87

42

-289

51.1

825.9

0.88

15.01

4963

.5 4.6

771

-2

60

1999

/00

1125

8000

71

2943

2 39

5400

0 10

80.0

91.8

1487

.5 1.5

6 26

.88

8771

.4 8.1

2 40

-2

8651

.5 87

7.50.8

7 15

.8851

87.7

4.80

68

-259

20

00/01

11

7000

00

7253

003

3998

368

1105

.6 93

.0 15

80.6

1.57

28.45

91

46.6

8.27

39

-283

52.0

929.4

0.88

16.76

5397

.3 4.8

866

-2

56

2001

/02

1207

3000

73

8749

1 40

4665

5 11

33.4

94.4

1674

.9 1.6

4 30

.09

9525

.5 8.4

0 38

-2

7952

.4 98

1.80.9

1 17

.6756

07.8

4.95

64

-253

54

Tabl

e B

5. S

umm

ary

of e

nerg

y an

d ca

rbon

sav

ings

due

to c

avity

wal

l ins

ulat

ion

gran

ts

No

t allo

wing

for f

ree-

rider

s Al

lowi

ng fo

r fre

e-rid

ers

Cu

mulat

ive

acqu

isitio

ns

from

start

of gr

ants

Cumu

lative

gr

ants

Cumu

lative

no

n fre

e-rid

er

gran

ts

Cumu

lative

gr

ant

expe

nditu

re

(£M

1999

/2000

)

Savin

gs

in tha

t ye

ar

(PJ)

Cumu

lative

sa

vings

(P

J)

Savin

gs

in tha

t ye

ar

(MtC

)

Cumu

lative

sa

vings

(M

tC)

Cumu

lative

co

st sa

ving

(£M

1999

/2000

)

Savin

g/co

st ra

tio

Cost

per

tonne

of

carb

on

save

d (£

/tC)

Net c

ost

per t

onne

of

carb

on

save

d (£

/tC)

Savin

gs

in tha

t ye

ar (P

J)

Cumu

lative

sa

vings

(P

J)

Savin

gs

in tha

t ye

ar

(MtC

)

Cumu

lative

sa

vings

(M

tC)

Cumu

lative

co

st sa

ving

(£M

1999

/2000

)

Savin

g/co

st ra

tio

Cost

per

tonne

of

carb

on

save

d (£

/tC)

Net c

ost

per t

onne

of

carb

on

save

d (£

/tC)

1994

/95

1220

00

2078

4 18

687

4.0

0.3

0.3

0.02

0.02

1.9

0.47

213

113

0.3

0.3

0.02

0.02

1.7

0.42

237

137

1995

/96

2490

00

5937

4 53

384

11.3

0.9

1.2

0.05

0.07

7.1

0.62

167

62

0.8

1.1

0.04

0.06

6.3

0.56

185

81

1996

/97

4440

00

1195

79

1063

20

25.0

1.8

3.0

0.08

0.15

16.6

0.66

170

57

1.6

2.7

0.07

0.13

14.8

0.59

190

77

1997

/98

6310

00

2391

85

2124

44

50.4

3.6

6.7

0.12

0.26

35.5

0.71

190

56

3.2

6.0

0.10

0.24

31.7

0.63

214

79

1998

/99

8490

00

3773

36

3306

08

88.0

5.8

12.5

0.17

0.43

63.3

0.72

204

57

5.0

11.0

0.15

0.38

56.0

0.64

230

84

1999

/00

1078

000

5400

83

4704

98

131.1

8.2

20

.7 0.2

1 0.6

4 99

.1 0.7

6 20

5 50

7.2

18

.2 0.1

8 0.5

6 87

.2 0.6

7 23

2 78

20

00/01

13

1000

0 71

5137

62

1957

17

5.5

10.9

31.6

0.24

0.88

143.2

0.8

2 19

9 37

9.5

27

.7 0.2

1 0.7

7 12

5.5

0.71

227

65

2001

/02

1515

000

8697

14

7556

98

214.8

13

.3 44

.9 0.2

7 1.1

5 19

6.4

0.91

187

16

11.5

39.2

0.23

1.01

171.8

0.8

0 21

3 43

Tabl

e B

6. S

umm

ary

of e

nerg

y an

d ca

rbon

sav

ings

due

to c

onde

nsin

g bo

iler g

rant

s

No

t allo

wing

for f

ree-

rider

s Al

lowi

ng fo

r fre

e-rid

ers

Cu

mulat

ive

acqu

isitio

ns

from

start

of gr

ants

Cumu

lative

gr

ants

Cumu

lative

no

n fre

e-rid

er

gran

ts

Cumu

lative

gr

ant

expe

nditu

re

(£M

1999

/2000

)

Savin

gs

in tha

t ye

ar

(PJ)

Cumu

lative

sa

vings

(P

J)

Savin

gs

in tha

t ye

ar

(MtC

)

Cumu

lative

sa

vings

(M

tC)

Cumu

lative

co

st sa

ving

(£M

1999

/2000

)

Savin

g/co

st ra

tio

Cost

per

tonne

of

carb

on

save

d (£

/tC)

Net c

ost

per t

onne

of

carb

on

save

d (£

/tC)

Savin

gs

in tha

t ye

ar (P

J)

Cumu

lative

sa

vings

(P

J)

Savin

gs

in tha

t ye

ar

(MtC

)

Cumu

lative

sa

vings

(M

tC)

Cumu

lative

co

st sa

ving

(£M

1999

/2000

)

Savin

g/co

st ra

tio

Cost

per

tonne

of

carb

on

save

d (£

/tC)

Net c

ost

per t

onne

of

carb

on

save

d (£

/tC)

1996

/97

2826

3 60

00

2008

2.5

0.1

0.1

0 0.0

01

0.001

0.5

0.2

0 17

50

1396

0.0

0.0

3 0.0

00

0.000

0.2

0.0

7 52

29

4875

19

97/98

61

803

1500

0 72

39

4.9

0.2

0.35

0.004

0.0

05

1.8

0.36

972

619

0.1

0.15

0.002

0.0

02

0.8

0.16

2208

18

55

1998

/99

1031

28

2711

0 13

911

8.4

0.4

0.79

0.007

0.0

12

3.9

0.47

724

385

0.2

0.38

0.003

0.0

06

1.9

0.23

1505

11

66

1999

/00

1548

28

4265

0 22

456

12.9

0.7

1.49

0.010

0.0

22

7.0

0.54

589

269

0.4

0.75

0.005

0.0

11

3.5

0.27

1173

85

4 20

00/01

22

2897

85

808

4544

2 25

.7 1.4

2.9

0 0.0

21

0.042

12

.7 0.4

9 60

7 30

7 0.7

1.5

0 0.0

11

0.022

6.5

0.2

5 11

76

878

2001

/02

3160

51

1395

85

7408

3 41

.7 2.3

5.2

0 0.0

34

0.076

21

.9 0.5

3 54

8 26

0 1.2

2.7

2 0.0

18

0.040

11

.4 0.2

7 10

50

763

55

Tabl

e B

7. S

umm

ary

of e

nerg

y an

d ca

rbon

sav

ings

to 1

999/

2000

due

to g

rant

s fo

r lof

t ins

ulat

ion,

cav

ity w

all i

nsul

atio

n an

d co

nden

sing

boi

lers

No

t allo

wing

for f

ree-

rider

s Al

lowi

ng fo

r fre

e-rid

ers

Cu

mulat

ive

acqu

isitio

ns

from

start

of gr

ants

Cumu

lative

gr

ants

Cumu

lative

no

n fre

e-rid

er

gran

ts

Cumu

lative

gr

ant

expe

nditu

re

(£M

1999

/2000

)

Savin

gs

in tha

t ye

ar

(PJ)

Cumu

lative

sa

vings

(P

J)

Savin

gs

in tha

t ye

ar

(MtC

)

Cumu

lative

sa

vings

(M

tC)

Cumu

lative

co

st sa

ving

(£M

1999

/2000

)

Savin

g/co

st ra

tio

Cost

per

tonne

of

carb

on

save

d (£

/tC)

Net c

ost

per t

onne

of

carb

on

save

d (£

/tC)

Savin

gs

in tha

t ye

ar

(PJ)

Cumu

lative

sa

vings

(P

J)

Savin

gs

in tha

t ye

ar

(MtC

)

Cumu

lative

sa

vings

(M

tC)

Cumu

lative

co

st sa

ving

(£M

1999

/2000

)

Savin

g/co

st ra

tio

Cost

per

tonne

of

carb

on

save

d (£

/tC)

Net c

ost

per t

onne

of

carb

on

save

d (£

/tC)

1978

62

4000

23

3592

13

7157

31

.5 3.3

3.3

0.0

7 0.0

7 19

.5 0.6

2 45

1 17

2 1.9

1.9

0.0

4 0.0

4 11

.5 0.3

6 76

8 48

9 19

79

1415

000

1287

310

8840

41

171.2

17

.9 21

.2 0.3

8 0.4

5 11

4.7

0.67

378

125

12.3

14.2

0.26

0.30

76.8

0.45

564

311

1980

20

5900

0 20

7460

7 13

6450

4 27

7.7

28.5

49.8

0.58

1.03

261.9

0.9

4 26

9 15

18

.8 33

.0 0.3

8 0.6

9 17

3.7

0.63

405

152

1981

29

2200

0 26

2787

4 16

8366

4 35

4.1

36.1

85.9

0.71

1.74

472.9

1.3

4 20

3 -6

8 23

.2 56

.2 0.4

5 1.1

4 30

9.0

0.87

311

40

1982

37

7500

0 32

9984

5 20

8477

3 44

2.5

45.9

131.8

0.8

8 2.6

2 78

5.8

1.78

169

-131

29

.0 85

.2 0.5

5 1.6

9 50

6.6

1.14

261

-38

1983

43

8400

0 39

5092

1 24

2901

5 54

3.3

55.5

187.2

1.0

4 3.6

6 11

90.1

2.19

149

-177

34

.0 11

9.2

0.64

2.33

754.9

1.3

9 23

3 -9

1 19

84

4901

000

4448

367

2691

157

620.1

62

.1 24

9.3

1.13

4.79

1636

.8 2.6

4 13

0 -2

12

37.5

156.8

0.6

8 3.0

2 10

25.0

1.65

206

-134

19

85

5482

000

4938

407

2942

403

698.0

67

.5 31

6.8

1.27

6.06

2111

.5 3.0

2 11

5 -2

33

40.3

197.1

0.7

6 3.7

7 13

08.5

1.87

185

-162

19

86

6146

000

5418

573

3224

159

762.8

72

.6 38

9.4

1.37

7.43

2612

.1 3.4

2 10

3 -2

49

43.3

240.4

0.8

2 4.5

9 16

07.2

2.11

166

-184

19

87

6655

000

5817

577

3473

491

811.6

77

.1 46

6.5

1.45

8.88

3114

.6 3.8

4 91

-2

59

46.1

286.5

0.8

7 5.4

6 19

07.7

2.35

149

-201

19

88

7013

000

6021

908

3563

033

848.7

79

.4 54

5.8

1.47

10.35

36

05.4

4.25

82

-266

47

.1 33

3.6

0.87

6.33

2199

.0 2.5

9 13

4 -2

13

1989

73

6400

0 61

1278

0 36

0557

9 86

4.3

80.5

626.3

1.4

7 11

.82

4093

.5 4.7

4 73

-2

73

47.6

381.2

0.8

7 7.2

0 24

87.9

2.88

120

-225

19

90

7633

000

6145

407

3621

896

869.5

80

.9 70

7.2

1.47

13.29

45

80.6

5.27

65

-279

47

.8 42

9.0

0.87

8.07

2775

.9 3.1

9 10

8 -2

36

1991

/92

8098

000

6199

358

3642

949

880.2

81

.5 78

8.7

1.48

14.77

50

68.9

5.76

60

-284

48

.1 47

7.1

0.87

8.95

3063

.9 3.4

8 98

-2

44

1992

/93

8482

000

6261

341

3664

461

893.2

82

.3 87

1.0

1.48

16.25

55

40.9

6.20

55

-286

48

.3 52

5.5

0.87

9.82

3341

.3 3.7

4 91

-2

49

1993

/94

8860

000

6343

369

3698

150

908.8

83

.2 95

4.1

1.44

17.70

60

07.6

6.61

51

-288

48

.7 57

4.2

0.85

10.66

36

14.6

3.98

85

-254

19

94/95

94

1400

0 65

1028

5 37

6229

9 94

5.3

85.1

1039

.3 1.5

0 19

.20

6505

.2 6.8

8 49

-2

90

49.5

623.7

0.8

8 11

.54

3903

.9 4.1

3 82

-2

56

1995

/96

9977

000

6750

010

3861

258

996.8

88

.0 11

27.3

1.57

20.77

70

10.0

7.03

48

-290

50

.8 67

4.4

0.91

12.45

41

95.1

4.21

80

-257

19

96/97

10

6282

63

6976

345

3976

495

1045

.3 90

.8 12

18.0

1.61

22.38

74

83.8

7.16

47

-288

52

.3 72

6.7

0.94

13.40

44

67.9

4.27

78

-255

19

97/98

11

1728

03

7204

363

4113

264

1097

.0 93

.8 13

11.9

1.65

24.03

79

71.5

7.27

46

-286

54

.2 78

0.9

0.97

14.37

47

49.8

4.33

76

-254

19

98/99

11

7891

28

7443

623

4259

757

1159

.8 97

.1 14

09.0

1.73

25.77

84

38.9

7.28

45

-282

56

.4 83

7.3

1.03

15.40

50

21.4

4.33

75

-251

19

99/00

12

4908

28

7712

165

4446

955

1224

.0 10

0.8

1509

.7 1.7

8 27

.54

8877

.5 7.2

5 44

-2

78

59.1

896.4

1.0

6 16

.46

5278

.4 4.3

1 74

-2

46

2000

/01

1323

2897

80

5394

8 46

6576

6 13

06.9

105.3

16

15.1

1.83

29.38

93

02.5

7.12

44

-272

62

.2 95

8.6

1.10

17.56

55

29.3

4.23

74

-240

20

01/02

13

9040

51

8396

791

4876

436

1390

.0 10

9.9

1725

.0 1.9

4 31

.32

9743

.8 7.0

1 44

-2

67

65.2

1023

.8 1.1

6 18

.72

5791

.0 4.1

7 74

-2

35

56

Tabl

e B

8. S

ales

of r

efrig

erat

ors

by e

nerg

y ba

nd a

nd s

avin

gs a

chie

ved

due

to la

belli

ng a

nd m

inim

um s

tand

ards

TO

TAL M

ARKE

T

VO

LUME

'000

s Q1

1996

Q2 19

96

Q3 19

96

Q4 19

96

Q1 19

97

Q2 19

97

Q3 19

97Q4

1997

Q1 19

98Q2

1998

Q3 19

98Q4

1998

Q1 19

99 Q

2 199

9Q3

1999

Q4 19

99Q1

2000

Q2 20

00Q3

2000

Q4 20

00Q1

2001

Q2 20

01Q3

2001

Q4 20

01

FRID

GES

161.1

16

8 21

2.3

170.5

16

8.4

190

274.4

20

4.4

183.6

19

7.5

248.9

19

7.8

198.5

20

6.7

285

221.3

20

8.1

216.9

26

7.3

245.1

22

1.5

239

304.4

25

0.4

ENER

GY C

LASS

A

3.3

3.9

4.9

4.3

4.2

4.9

7.6

6.1

5.4

6 8

5.7

5.6

6.5

10.4

9.7

10.5

13

22.23

25

.13

20.87

36

.42

65.6

60.75

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS B

13

.6 18

.3 14

.8 20

.6 17

.9 19

.6 27

.5 23

.3 30

.1 40

.8 62

44

.8 42

.9 52

.1 79

68

.1 70

.3 86

97

.49

88.9

82.81

95

.74

133.8

5 10

7.45

ENER

GY C

LASS

C

66.4

79.3

121.3

86

.7 82

.9 95

14

1.4

103.3

83

.2 87

.1 11

0.4

101.9

10

6 10

6.4

149.7

11

3.6

105.3

97

.7 11

0.46

106.4

5 10

3.01

93.99

91

.42

66.88

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS D

47

.7 39

.1 55

.4 43

.1 48

.3 59

.7 75

.4 53

.8 51

.9 51

.6 48

.5 34

.4 31

.7 31

.7 32

19

.9 13

.3 9.9

5.8

6 4.7

9 3.9

1 3

3.91

4 EN

ERGY

CLA

SS E

8.7

5.8

5.2

4.3

3.5

2.6

4.1

3.3

2.7

2.8

6.3

2.8

2.4

1.9

0.9

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.0

5 0.0

1 0.0

2 0.0

1 0.0

1 0.0

5 EN

ERGY

CLA

SS F

0.4

0.7

1

0.6

0.5

0.1

ENER

GY C

LASS

G

0.4

0.3

0.8

0.6

0.9

1.1

0.8

0.5

0.7

1.6

1

1.1

1.2

2.2

1.4

0.9

1 1.4

8 1.0

9 0.9

8 1.0

3 1.3

2 1.3

3 UN

KNOW

N 20

.7 20

.9 8.9

10

.9 10

.7 7.3

17

.2 13

.8 9.7

8.6

12

.1 7.3

8.8

6.9

10

.8 8

7.5

9 29

.81

18.69

10

.18

8.78

8.32

9.9

% C

or be

tter

59.3%

68

.9%

69.3%

69

.9%

66.5%

65

.4%

68.6%

69

.6%

68.3%

70

.8%

76.2%

80

.0%

81.4%

82

.6%

87.2%

89

.8%

92.7%

94

.6%

96.9%

97

.4%

97.7%

98

.2%

98.2%

97

.8%

Annu

al Sa

les

1996

19

97

1998

19

99

2000

20

01

ENER

GY C

LASS

A

16.4

22.8

25.1

32.2

70.9

183.6

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS B

67

.3 88

.3 17

7.7

242.1

34

2.7

419.9

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS C

35

3.7

422.6

38

2.6

475.7

41

9.9

355.3

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS D

18

5.3

237.2

18

6.4

115.3

33

.9 14

.8

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS E

24

.0 13

.5 14

.6 5.7

0.8

0.1

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS F

2.7

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS G

1.5

3.4

3.8

5.9

4.5

4.7

UN

KNOW

N 61

.4 49

.0 37

.7 34

.5 65

.0 37

.2

TO

TAL

712.3

83

7.4

827.9

91

1.4

937.5

10

15.5

Pro r

ata of

unkn

owns

Relat

ive en

ergy

use o

f the

diffe

rent

ener

gy cl

asse

s (kW

h/yea

r)

ENER

GY C

LASS

A

17.95

24

.22

26.30

33

.47

76.14

19

0.62

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS A

16

4

ENER

GY C

LASS

B

73.65

93

.79

186.1

8 25

1.62

368.2

2 43

5.81

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS B

21

3

ENER

GY C

LASS

C

387.0

6 44

8.87

400.8

5 49

4.42

451.1

9 36

8.80

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS C

26

9

ENER

GY C

LASS

D

202.7

8 25

1.94

195.2

9 11

9.84

36.37

15

.38

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS D

31

2

ENER

GY C

LASS

E

26.26

14

.34

15.30

5.9

2 0.8

2 0.0

9

ENER

GY C

LASS

E

345

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS F

2.9

5 0.6

4 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0

ENER

GY C

LASS

F

384

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS G

1.6

4 3.6

1 3.9

8 6.1

3 4.8

0 4.8

4

ENER

GY C

LASS

G

427

TO

TAL

712.3

83

7.4

827.9

91

1.4

937.5

10

15.5

Henc

e ave

rage

ener

gy u

se pe

r new

appli

ance

in ea

ch ye

ar (k

Wh/y

ear)

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

276

275

265

257

241

227

Henc

e sav

ing pe

r new

appli

ance

in ea

ch ye

ar re

lative

to 19

96 (k

Wh/y

ear)

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

0 2

11

19

35

50

Henc

e nat

iona

l sav

ing

due t

o ne

w ap

plian

ces i

n ea

ch ye

ar, r

elativ

e to

1996

1996

19

97

1998

19

99

2000

20

01

In kW

h/yea

r 0

1460

368

9122

052

1772

7141

33

0594

32

5036

8690

In

GJ/ye

ar 0

5257

32

839

6381

8 11

9014

18

1328

In

PJ/ye

ar 0.0

00

0.005

0.0

33

0.064

0.1

19

0.181

In

PJ/ye

ar cu

mulat

ive

0.000

0.0

05

0.038

0.1

02

0.221

0.4

02

Carb

on fa

ctor fo

r elec

t. 0.0

3863

0.0

3517

0.0

3581

0.0

3502

0.0

3505

0.0

3905

In

MtC/

year

0 0.0

0018

0.0

0118

0.0

0223

0.0

0417

0.0

0708

In

MtC/

year

cumu

lative

0

0.000

18

0.001

36

0.003

57

0.007

74

0.015

71

Sum

med

savin

gs to

end o

f stat

ed ye

ar

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

In

PJ/ye

ar 0.0

00

0.005

0.0

43

0.145

0.3

66

0.768

In

MtC/

year

0.000

0.0

00

0.002

0.0

05

0.013

0.0

29

57

Tabl

e B

9. S

ales

of f

ridge

free

zers

by

ener

gy b

and

and

savi

ngs

achi

eved

due

to la

belli

ng a

nd m

inim

um s

tand

ards

TOTA

L MA

RKET

VO

LUME

'000

s Q1

1996

Q2 19

96Q3

1996

Q4

1996

Q1

1997

Q2

1997

Q3

1997

Q4 19

97Q1

1998

Q2 19

98Q3

1998

Q4 19

98Q1

1999

Q2 1

999

Q3 19

99Q4

1999

Q1 20

00Q2

2000

Q3 20

00Q4

2000

Q1 20

01Q2

2001

Q3 20

01 Q

4 200

1 FR

IDGE

FRE

EZER

S 21

7.7

208.8

28

4.8

242.1

21

2.3

222.7

33

0.1

273.6

24

3.1

236.8

30

3.8

260.1

26

2.7

254.7

36

3.7

306

290.1

28

3.5

361

336.4

31

6.3

316.8

40

7.2

358.8

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS A

0.6

0.9

1.3

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.9

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.6

1.1

1.8

4.7

3.8

4.5

6.7

20

.33

19.3

27.51

30

.5 52

.21

62.34

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS B

7.6

8

10.9

9.5

9.1

11.8

16.9

15.8

16.8

18.4

28.6

23.8

27

48.5

85.3

70.3

70.1

76.4

94.54

90

.66

82.57

11

0.55

181.1

4 15

6.56

ENER

GY C

LASS

C

31.4

33

56.6

52.6

45.7

37.9

56.1

49.8

46.9

53.9

72.9

63.4

71.2

86.8

180.9

17

3 17

5.9

174

212.4

4 20

1.43

187.5

2 15

9.92

155.2

3 12

4.5

ENER

GY C

LASS

D

78.5

72.4

95.8

75.8

68.4

81.3

118.7

98

.3 83

.3 76

.6 94

.6 82

.4 77

46

.9 43

.8 30

.8 15

.4 7.1

6.4

6 3.8

7 3.3

4 3.8

4 5.9

1 7

ENER

GY C

LASS

E

19.3

18.8

34.4

29.4

31.7

35.5

63

53.4

45.3

42.8

45.8

38.3

35

23

16.7

8.3

7 4.2

3.7

1 2.9

1 3.4

3 2.7

2 1.5

6 2.4

6 EN

ERGY

CLA

SS F

15

.6 16

.7 29

.9 19

.5 18

.5 20

22

.4 15

.5 14

.5 11

.5 15

.4 12

.9 11

.2 7.3

6.4

1.8

4.9

4.7

4.8

7 3.9

8 1.6

7 1.0

5 1.4

8 1.0

2 EN

ERGY

CLA

SS G

22

.8 20

.3 31

.5 27

.1 23

.1 22

.9 33

.8 27

22

.8 19

.9 29

.1 24

.4 28

.7 29

.5 14

.6 6.1

3.2

2.3

2.0

6 2.1

9 2.0

3 1.4

9 0.8

8 0.6

3 UN

KNOW

N 42

.1 38

.7 24

.5 27

.6 15

.2 12

.7 18

.7 12

.9 12

.7 12

.7 16

.4 13

.3 11

.5 10

.9 11

.4 11

.8 9.1

8.1

16

.73

12.03

8.4

6 6.7

2 8.7

7 4.3

2 %

C or

bette

r 22

.5%

24.6%

26

.4%

29.2%

28

.1%

23.9%

23

.6%

25.5%

28

.0%

32.7%

35

.7%

36.0%

39

.5%

56.2%

76

.9%

84.0%

89

.1%

93.4%

95

.0%

96.0%

96

.6%

97.1%

97

.5%

96.9%

Annu

al Sa

les

1996

19

97

1998

19

99

2000

20

01

ENER

GY C

LASS

A

3.4

2.5

4.4

11.4

50.8

172.6

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS B

36

.0 53

.6 87

.6 23

1.1

331.7

53

0.8

ENER

GY C

LASS

C

173.6

18

9.5

237.1

51

1.9

763.8

62

7.2

ENER

GY C

LASS

D

322.5

36

6.7

336.9

19

8.5

32.8

20.1

ENER

GY C

LASS

E

101.9

18

3.6

172.2

83

.0 17

.8 10

.2

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS F

81

.7 76

.4 54

.3 26

.7 18

.5 5.2

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS G

10

1.7

106.8

96

.2 78

.9 9.8

5.0

UN

KNOW

N 13

2.9

59.5

55.1

45.6

46.0

28.3

TOTA

L 95

3.7

1038

.6 10

43.8

1187

.1 12

71.1

1399

.3

Pro

rata

of u

nkno

wns

Re

lative

ener

gy u

se o

f the

diff

eren

t ene

rgy c

lasse

s (kW

h/ye

ar)

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS A

3.9

5 2.6

5 4.6

5 11

.86

52.74

17

6.12

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS A

369

ENER

GY C

LASS

B

41.83

56

.86

92.48

24

0.33

344.1

4 54

1.77

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS B

479

ENER

GY C

LASS

C

201.7

1 20

1.02

250.3

1 53

2.35

792.4

2 64

0.10

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS C

605

ENER

GY C

LASS

D

374.7

2 38

8.98

355.6

8 20

6.43

34.06

20

.50

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS D

700

ENER

GY C

LASS

E

118.4

0 19

4.76

181.8

0 86

.32

18.49

10

.38

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS E

774

ENER

GY C

LASS

F

94.93

81

.04

57.33

27

.77

19.14

5.3

3

ENER

GY C

LASS

F86

3

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS G

11

8.17

113.2

9 10

1.56

82.05

10

.12

5.13

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS G

958

TOTA

L 95

3.7

1038

.6 10

43.8

1187

.1 12

71.1

1399

.3

Henc

e ave

rage

ener

gy u

se p

er n

ew ap

plian

ce in

each

year

(kW

h/ye

ar)

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

726

724

703

636

573

531

Henc

e sav

ing

per n

ew ap

plian

ce in

each

year

relat

ive to

1996

(kW

h/ye

ar)

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

0 3

23

90

154

195

Henc

e nat

iona

l sav

ing

due t

o ne

w ap

plian

ces i

n ea

ch ye

ar, r

elativ

e to

1996

1996

19

97

1998

19

99

2000

20

01

In kW

h/yea

r 0

2908

6522

4138

220

1068

4697

0 19

5438

297

2729

3182

3

In

GJ/ye

ar

010

471

8689

8 38

4650

70

3580

9825

57

In

PJ/ye

ar

0.000

0.010

0.087

0.3

85

0.704

0.983

In PJ

/year

cumu

lative

0.0

000.0

100.0

97

0.482

1.1

862.1

68

Ca

rbon

facto

r for

elec

t. 0.0

3862

50.0

3517

20.0

3580

9 0.0

3501

82 0

.0350

455

0.039

0545

In Mt

C/ye

ar

00.0

0036

80.0

0311

2 0.0

1346

97 0

.0246

573

0.038

3733

In Mt

C/ye

ar cu

mulat

ive

00.0

0036

80.0

0348

7 0.0

1687

94 0

.0415

499

0.084

6764

Sum

med

savin

gs to

end

of st

ated

year

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

In

PJ/ye

ar

0.000

0.0

10

0.108

0.5

90

1.775

3.9

44

In Mt

C/ye

ar

0.000

0.0

00

0.004

0.0

21

0.062

0.1

47

58

Tabl

e B

10. S

ales

of u

prig

ht fr

eeze

rs b

y en

ergy

ban

d an

d sa

ving

s ac

hiev

ed d

ue to

labe

lling

and

min

imum

sta

ndar

ds

TOTA

L MA

RKET

VO

LUME

'000

s Q1

1996

Q2 19

96Q3

1996

Q4

1996

Q1

1997

Q2 19

97Q3

1997

Q4 19

97Q1

1998

Q2 19

98Q3

1998

Q4 19

98Q1

1999

Q2

1999

Q3 19

99Q4

1999

Q1 20

00Q2

2000

Q3 20

00Q4

2000

Q1 20

01Q2

2001

Q3 20

01Q4

2001

UP

RIGH

T FR

ZS.

96.21

87

.47

118.8

11

4.9

93.76

95

.65

138.2

13

7.2

110.7

10

2.3

134.8

13

4.5

116.1

11

1.6

157.7

15

8.6

134.6

12

4 15

5.8

176.3

13

8 13

5.3

174.3

17

9.5

ENER

GY C

LASS

A

1.32

1.55

1.8

1.67

0.63

0.07

0.22

0.17

0.25

0.34

0.34

2.3

2.24

2.16

3.54

4.42

5.39

4.95

5.85

8.19

7.93

9.03

10.51

13

.54

ENER

GY C

LASS

B

2.84

3.11

4.31

4.21

3.4

4.14

7.66

7.88

7.25

7.11

8.97

6.62

6.28

17.03

31

.04

28.4

24.22

24

.54

33.03

40

.79

30.68

38

.74

63.46

72

.52

ENER

GY C

LASS

C

11.01

9.6

15

.4 14

.57

12.11

12

.49

22.98

22

.38

18.09

22

.44

30.58

32

.01

26.45

32

.97

70.46

85

.34

72.4

64.36

74

.26

86.28

72

.71

71.96

83

.2 77

.05

ENER

GY C

LASS

D

22.1

20.7

44.42

44

.95

37.79

33

.98

44.6

45.49

35

.3 36

.33

45.41

49

.18

45.08

30

.64

25.53

18

.99

13.32

10

.98

13.87

9.9

5 4.1

1 2.1

1.9

4 2.6

9 EN

ERGY

CLA

SS E

8.9

8.8

7 12

.59

12.42

9.2

1 9.4

7 10

.93

8.6

8.42

9.09

13.33

13

.61

11.14

7.8

5 6.9

6 6.5

4 4.1

5 3.1

6 3.0

7 3.0

9 2.6

5 1.9

2 2.3

8 1.9

8 EN

ERGY

CLA

SS F

3.4

4 3.3

4 5.3

4 5.4

3 5.7

4.6

1 6.7

4 6.9

1 6.1

1 3.9

4 5.1

4 6.6

4 5.6

1 4.9

1 5.6

7 5.4

2 5.8

8 4.9

6 5.2

4.2

9 3.2

7 2.6

1 3.3

9 2.9

1 EN

ERGY

CLA

SS G

6.2

2 4.4

9 14

.83

16.17

11

.57

9.61

12.61

10

.51

8.85

10.41

13

.4 12

.36

10.39

8.8

3 8.7

6 4.2

3 2.9

7 1.9

7 1.3

1 0.1

7 0.1

6 0.1

0.2

1 0.3

5 AL

L OTH

ERS

40.38

35

.8 20

.16

15.51

13

.36

21.28

32

.47

35.21

26

.39

12.66

17

.66

11.81

8.8

7 7.2

4 5.7

8 5.2

2 6.2

9 9.0

8 19

.24

23.51

16

.52

8.81

9.22

8.49

% C

or be

tter

27.2%

27

.6%

21.8%

20

.6%

20.1%

22

.5%

29.2%

29

.9%

30.4%

33

.3%

34.0%

33

.4%

32.6%

50

.0%

69.1%

77

.1%

79.5%

81

.7%

82.8%

88

.5%

91.6%

94

.7%

95.2%

95

.4%

Annu

al Sa

les

1996

1997

1998

19

99

2000

2001

ENER

GY C

LASS

A

6.3

1.1

3.2

12.4

24.4

41.0

ENER

GY C

LASS

B

14.5

23.1

30.0

82.8

122.6

20

5.4

ENER

GY C

LASS

C

50.6

70.0

103.1

21

5.2

297.3

30

4.9

ENER

GY C

LASS

D

132.2

16

1.9

166.2

12

0.2

48.1

10.8

ENER

GY C

LASS

E

42.8

38.2

44.5

32.5

13.5

8.9

ENER

GY C

LASS

F

17.6

24.0

21.8

21.6

20.3

12.2

ENER

GY C

LASS

G

41.7

44.3

45.0

32.2

6.4

0.8

UNKN

OWN

111.9

10

2.3

68.5

27.1

58.1

43.0

TOTA

L 41

7.5

464.8

48

2.3

544.0

59

0.7

627.1

Pr

o ra

ta o

f unk

nown

s

Relat

ive en

ergy

use

of t

he d

iffer

ent e

nerg

y clas

ses (

kWh/

year

)

ENER

GY C

LASS

A

8.66

1.40

3.76

13.01

27

.04

44.03

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS A

234

ENER

GY C

LASS

B

19.77

29

.60

34.91

87

.09

135.9

6 22

0.54

ENER

GY C

LASS

B30

5

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS C

69

.09

89.71

12

0.19

226.5

1 32

9.74

327.3

9 EN

ERGY

CLA

SS C

384

ENER

GY C

LASS

D

180.5

4 20

7.55

193.7

4 12

6.55

53.37

11

.64

ENER

GY C

LASS

D44

5

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS E

58

.44

49.00

51

.81

34.19

14

.94

9.59

ENER

GY C

LASS

E49

2

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS F

23

.97

30.72

25

.44

22.74

22

.55

13.08

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS F

548

ENER

GY C

LASS

G

56.98

56

.81

52.47

33

.90

7.12

0.88

ENER

GY C

LASS

G60

9

TO

TAL

417.5

46

4.8

482.3

54

4.0

590.7

62

7.1

Henc

e ave

rage

ener

gy u

se p

er n

ew ap

plian

ce in

each

year

(kW

h/ye

ar)

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

459

456

446

410

376

352

Henc

e sav

ing

per n

ew ap

plian

ce in

each

year

relat

ive to

1996

(kW

h/ye

ar)

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

0 3

12

49

83

107

Henc

e nat

iona

l sav

ing

due t

o ne

w ap

plian

ces i

n ea

ch ye

ar, r

elativ

e to

1996

1996

19

97

1998

19

99

2000

20

01

In kW

h/yea

r 0

1531

420

5998

590 2

6756

463 4

8829

2306

6908

942

In GJ

/year

0

5513

2159

5 96

324

1757

8624

0873

In PJ

/year

0.0

000.0

060.0

22

0.096

0.1

760.2

41

In

PJ/ye

ar cu

mulat

ive

0.000

0.006

0.027

0.1

23

0.299

0.540

Carb

on fa

ctor f

or el

ect.

0.038

6250

.0351

720.0

3580

9 0.0

3501

8 0.0

3504

50.0

3905

5

In

MtC/

year

00

.0001

940.0

0077

3 0.0

0337

3 0.0

0616

0.009

407

In Mt

C/ye

ar cu

mulat

ive

00.00

0194

0.000

971

0.004

322

0.010

486

0.021

093

Sum

med

savin

gs to

end

of st

ated

year

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

In

PJ/ye

ar

0.000

0.0

06

0.033

0.1

56

0.455

0.9

95

In Mt

C/ye

ar

0.000

0.0

00

0.001

0.0

05

0.016

0.0

37

59

Tabl

e B

11. S

ales

of c

hest

free

zers

by

ener

gy b

and

and

savi

ngs

achi

eved

due

to la

belli

ng a

nd m

inim

um s

tand

ards

TOTA

L MA

RKET

VO

LUME

'000

s Q1

1996

Q2

1996

Q3 19

96

Q4 19

96

Q1 19

97Q2

1997

Q3 19

97Q4

1997

Q1

1998

Q2

1998

Q3

1998

Q4

1998

Q1

1999

Q2

1999

Q3 19

99Q4

1999

Q1 20

00Q2

2000

Q3 20

00Q4

2000

Q1 20

01Q2

2001

Q3 20

01 Q

4 200

1 CH

EST

FREE

ZERS

56

.97

49.62

74

.21

90.97

55

.83

53.88

85

.55

100.2

64

.46

56.46

77

.82

97.22

60

.21

57.02

83

.5 10

7.9

67.69

61

.39

79.75

11

7.2

73.55

64

.91

91.62

11

9.4

ENER

GY C

LASS

A

0.08

0.1

0.07

0.59

0.9

0.86

0.61

0.22

0.5

1 0.5

6 0.4

9 1.0

7 0.9

6 2.3

8 2.5

7 2.7

3.6

2 3.5

3 2.4

9 4.5

7 6.3

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS B

0.3

6 0.2

9 0.8

2 1.2

9 0.8

4 0.9

1.4

8 1.3

9 0.7

8 0.7

1 0.9

9 1.1

8 1.1

6 1.1

2 1.9

9 2.2

1.0

8 0.8

6 1.4

7 1.6

7 1

1.15

1.85

1.68

ENER

GY C

LASS

C

0.09

0.15

0.22

0.31

0.31

0.43

0.89

10.36

8.8

1 5.1

5 9.8

5 10

.88

6.73

7.38

14.12

9.3

7 15

.94

12.77

14

.69

21.45

13

.54

16.62

30

.32

44.43

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS D

0.1

2 0.1

2 2.1

9 5.1

5 3.5

7 3.2

6 4.0

6 5.8

2 3.2

4 3.4

9 4.2

5.7

9.1

7 8.9

1 15

.28

26.5

19.52

17

.88

24.22

32

.05

25.14

21

.25

29.48

35

.33

ENER

GY C

LASS

E

0.58

0.78

1.58

1.45

1.38

0.91

2 1.7

9 1.1

1 0.9

1 1.5

2.1

2 2.2

1 2.5

8 8.3

9 26

.16

18.59

18

.18

27.85

48

.53

24.26

18

.82

16.16

18

.99

ENER

GY C

LASS

F

2.8

2.68

6.94

14.69

11

.86

15.26

22

.96

19.39

13

.06

13.52

17

.69

19.48

9.2

7 10

.24

11.66

18

.99

3.11

2.48

3.28

4.14

2.38

1.88

3.7

6.19

ENER

GY C

LASS

G

15.61

14

.01

27.61

23

.55

15.8

15.32

20

.99

19.46

14

.84

12.12

13

.22

19.2

19.79

11

.15

12.38

4.3

9 2.2

5 1.3

9 1.8

4 1.9

7 1.3

6 1.1

7 1.3

6 0.7

2 UN

KNOW

N 37

.41

31.58

34

.77

44.44

22

17

.22

32.27

41

.11

22

20.33

29

.87

37.67

11

.33

15.17

18

.62

19.33

4.8

3 5.2

5 3.7

1 3.7

8 2.3

6 1.5

4 4.1

8 5.7

5 %

E or

bette

r 5.9

%

7.4%

12

.4%

17.8%

18

.2%

16.6%

17

.5%

34.2%

34

.3%

29.0%

35

.5%

35.1%

40

.6%

48.9%

63

.0%

73.6%

91

.5%

93.1%

93

.3%

94.6%

94

.7%

95.2%

94

.2%

93.9%

Annu

al Sa

les

1996

19

97

1998

19

99

2000

20

01

ENER

GY C

LASS

A

0.2

2.4

2.3

3.1

11.3

16.9

ENER

GY C

LASS

B

2.8

4.6

3.7

6.5

5.1

5.7

ENER

GY C

LASS

C

0.8

12.0

34.7

37.6

64.9

104.9

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS D

7.6

16

.7 16

.6 59

.9 93

.7 11

1.2

ENER

GY C

LASS

E

4.4

6.1

5.6

39.3

113.2

78

.2

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS F

27

.1 69

.5 63

.8 50

.2 13

.0 14

.2

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS G

80

.8 71

.6 59

.4 47

.7 7.5

4.6

UN

KNOW

N 14

8.2

112.6

10

9.9

64.5

17.6

13.8

TOTA

L 27

1.8

295.5

29

6.0

308.7

32

6.1

349.5

Pr

o ra

ta o

f unk

nown

s

Relat

ive en

ergy

use

of t

he d

iffer

ent e

nerg

y clas

ses (

kWh/

year

)

ENER

GY C

LASS

A

0.40

3.91

3.71

3.89

11.91

17

.59

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS A

18

8

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS B

6.0

7 7.4

5 5.8

2 8.1

8 5.3

7 5.9

1

ENER

GY C

LASS

B

245

ENER

GY C

LASS

C

1.69

19.37

55

.17

47.52

68

.54

109.2

3

ENER

GY C

LASS

C

309

ENER

GY C

LASS

D

16.67

27

.00

26.45

75

.66

99.01

11

5.78

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS D

35

8

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS E

9.6

6 9.8

2 8.9

7 49

.72

119.5

9 81

.45

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS E

39

5

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS F

59

.62

112.2

5 10

1.39

63.40

13

.75

14.73

ENER

GY C

LASS

F

441

ENER

GY C

LASS

G

177.6

6 11

5.64

94.44

60

.30

7.87

4.80

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS G

48

9

TO

TAL

271.8

29

5.5

296.0

30

8.7

326.1

34

9.5

Henc

e ave

rage

ener

gy u

se p

er n

ew ap

plian

ce in

each

year

(kW

h/ye

ar)

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

460

434

416

394

360

346

Henc

e sav

ing

per n

ew ap

plian

ce in

each

year

relat

ive to

1996

(kW

h/ye

ar)

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

0 27

44

66

10

0 11

4

He

nce n

atio

nal s

avin

g du

e to

new

appl

iance

s in

each

year

, rela

tive t

o 19

96

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

In

kWh/y

ear

0 78

5331

6 13

1643

66 2

0504

791

3274

9096

3992

9423

In GJ

/year

0

2827

2 47

392

7381

7 11

7897

14

3746

In

PJ/ye

ar

0.000

0.0

28

0.047

0.0

74

0.118

0.1

44

In PJ

/year

cumu

lative

0.0

00

0.028

0.0

76

0.149

0.2

67

0.411

Ca

rbon

facto

r for

elec

t. 0.0

3862

520.0

3517

2 0.0

3580

9 0.0

3501

8 0.0

3504

50.0

3905

5

In

MtC/

year

0

0.000

994

0.001

697

0.002

585

0.004

132

0.005

614

In Mt

C/ye

ar cu

mulat

ive

0 0.0

0099

4 0.0

0270

9 0.0

0523

5 0.0

0937

0.0

1605

6

Sum

med

savin

gs to

end

of st

ated

year

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

In

PJ/ye

ar

0.000

0.0

28

0.104

0.2

53

0.521

0.9

32

In Mt

C/ye

ar

0.000

0.0

01

0.004

0.0

09

0.018

0.0

34

60

Tabl

e B

12. S

ales

of w

ashi

ng m

achi

nes

by e

nerg

y ba

nd a

nd s

avin

gs a

chie

ved

due

to la

belli

ng a

nd m

inim

um s

tand

ards

TOTA

L MA

RKET

VO

LUME

'000

s Q1

1996

Q2 19

96

Q3 19

96

Q4 19

96

Q1 19

97Q2

1997

Q3

1997

Q4 19

97Q1

1998

Q2 19

98Q3

1998

Q4 19

98Q1

1999

Q2 1

999

Q3 19

99Q4

1999

Q1 20

00Q2

2000

Q3 20

00Q4

2000

Q1 20

01Q2

2001

Q3 20

01 Q

4 200

1 AU

TO W

ASHI

NG M

ACHI

NE41

0.1

374.4

39

6.2

384.1

41

2.8

388.7

42

9.6

425.2

46

5 42

2.6

463.9

44

0.1

512.6

46

6.1

478.6

47

1.9

553.7

48

7.7

506.1

52

3.7

588.1

53

8.6

552.2

53

8 EN

ERGY

CLA

SS A

0.1

0.3

0.7

0.8

7.5

23.2

30.2

44.4

52

55.6

53.1

66.2

67.5

144.3

21

3.7

243.3

23

1.2

263.3

26

8 EN

ERGY

CLA

SS B

85

.5 93

.7 99

14

3.8

154.1

16

1.8

164.3

15

8.5

159.5

16

7.6

200

185.6

19

6.9

190.9

22

4.6

228.9

19

1.9

182.9

22

5.4

230

217.7

18

4.7

ENER

GY C

LASS

C

125

113.3

12

7.3

97.6

132.3

13

9.8

175.9

17

9.5

205.1

19

6 22

8.1

192.5

20

0.8

199.4

23

6.6

177.7

14

9.8

109

93.5

66.1

59.3

71.8

ENER

GY C

LASS

D

21.4

39.1

37.7

27

10.7

5.1

5.1

7.2

8.2

5.2

1.3

3.9

5.4

7.5

1 0.7

0.8

0.3

0.3

0.1

1.1

0.9

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS E

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS F

2.7

2.6

4.9

2.3

0.4

ENER

GY C

LASS

G

2.7

2.7

2.6

2.7

3.6

3 3.1

2.9

2.5

2.8

2.6

1.5

0.5

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.4

UN

KNOW

N 41

0.1

374.4

15

8.9

132.6

14

1.3

115.3

12

8.2

114.9

11

5.8

67

65.4

38

36

30.6

19.4

20.9

25.3

12.8

19.3

17.8

25.6

11.1

10.5

12

% C

or be

tter

88.7%

82

.3%

83.4%

88

.3%

95.1%

97

.4%

97.7%

97

.2%

97.3%

98

.0%

99.1%

98

.8%

98.7%

98

.3%

99.8%

99

.9%

99.8%

99

.9%

99.9%

10

0.0%

99

.7%

99.7%

%

D or

bette

r

97

.7%

97.9%

97

.2%

98.2%

98

.7%

99.0%

99

.1%

99.2%

99

.4%

99.3%

99

.4%

99.7%

99

.9%

100.0

%

100.0

%

100.0

%

100.0

%

100.0

%

100.0

%

100.0

%

99.9%

99

.9%

Annu

al Sa

les

1996

19

97

1998

19

99

2000

20

01

ENER

GY C

LASS

A

0.0

1.1

61.7

205.1

49

1.7

1005

.8

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS B

17

9.2

558.7

64

9.9

773.4

82

8.3

857.8

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS C

23

8.3

497.0

75

6.5

820.8

67

3.1

290.7

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS D

60

.5 80

.5 25

.7 18

.1 2.8

2.4

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS E

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.2

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS F

5.3

7.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS G

5.4

11

.9 11

.3 4.7

0.2

0.6

UN

KNOW

N 10

76.0

499.7

28

6.2

106.9

75

.2 59

.2

TO

TAL

1564

.7 16

56.5

1791

.5 19

29.2

2071

.3 22

16.7

Pro

rata

of u

nkno

wns

Re

lative

ener

gy u

se o

f the

diff

eren

t ene

rgy c

lasse

s (kW

h/ye

ar)

ENER

GY C

LASS

A

0.00

1.58

73.43

21

7.13

510.2

2 10

33.40

ENER

GY C

LASS

A18

0

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS B

57

3.76

800.0

4 77

3.46

818.7

7 85

9.50

881.3

4

ENER

GY C

LASS

B22

3

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS C

76

2.98

711.6

9 90

0.33

868.9

5 69

8.46

298.6

8

ENER

GY C

LASS

C26

6

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS D

19

3.71

115.2

7 30

.59

19.16

2.9

1 2.4

7

ENER

GY C

LASS

D30

7

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS E

0.0

0 0.0

0 0.2

4 0.2

1 0.0

0 0.2

1

ENER

GY C

LASS

E35

0

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS F

16

.97

10.88

0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0

ENER

GY C

LASS

F39

3

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS G

17

.29

17.04

13

.45

4.98

0.21

0.62

EN

ERGY

CLA

SS G

435

TOTA

L 15

64.7

1656

.5 17

91.5

1929

.2 20

71.3

2216

.7

Henc

e ave

rage

ener

gy u

se p

er n

ew ap

plian

ce in

each

year

(kW

h/ye

ar)

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

258

250

246

239

227

209

Henc

e sav

ing

per n

ew ap

plian

ce in

each

year

relat

ive to

1996

(kW

h/ye

ar)

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

0 8

13

20

32

50

Henc

e nat

iona

l sav

ing

due t

o ne

w ap

plian

ces i

n ea

ch ye

ar, r

elativ

e to

1996

1996

19

97

1998

19

99

2000

20

01

In kW

h/yea

r 0

1325

1046

227

9534

9 37

9548

99 6

5274

374

1098

9743

5

In

GJ/ye

ar

047

704

8206

3 13

6638

23

4988

3956

32

In

PJ/ye

ar

0.000

0.048

0.0

82

0.137

0.2

350.3

96

In

PJ/ye

ar cu

mulat

ive

0.000

0.048

0.1

30

0.266

0.5

010.8

97

Ca

rbon

facto

r for

elec

t. 0.0

3862

50.0

3517

2 0.0

3580

9 0.0

3501

8 0.0

3504

50.0

3905

45

In

MtC/

year

0

0.001

678

0.002

939

0.004

785

0.008

235

0.015

4512

In Mt

C/ye

ar cu

mulat

ive

00.0

0167

8 0.0

0464

7 0.0

0932

9 0.0

1757

20.0

3503

29

Sum

med

savin

gs to

end

of st

ated

year

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

In

PJ/ye

ar

0.000

0.0

48

0.177

0.4

44

0.945

1.8

42

In Mt

C/ye

ar

0.000

0.0

02

0.006

0.0

16

0.033

0.0

68

61

Tabl

e B

13. S

ales

of g

as b

oile

rs b

y ef

ficie

ncy

band

(tho

usan

ds) a

nd th

e sa

ving

s du

e to

labe

lling

and

min

imum

sta

ndar

ds

A

B C

D E

F G

TOTA

L %

sales

at

D or

bette

r%

sales

at

B or

bette

r%

sales

at

F or

bette

rAv

erag

e new

bo

iler

effici

ency

Aver

age

deliv

ered

en

ergy

(GJ)

Equiv

alent

if eff

icien

cy

rema

ins at

1992

lev

el

Savin

g re

lative

to

1992

(GJ)

Savin

gs of

boile

rs so

ld in

that y

ear

relat

ive to

1992

(P

J)

Savin

gs in

that

year

of al

l bo

ilers

sold

since

1992

(PJ)

Savin

gs in

that

year

of

all bo

ilers

sold

since

1992

(MtC

)

1970

0

0 0

0 0

0 30

1 30

1 0.0

%

0.0%

0.0

%

69.0%

37

.3

1971

0

0 0

0 0

0 39

4 39

4 0.0

%

0.0%

0.0

%

69.0%

40

.9

1972

0

0 0

0 0

0 49

1 49

1 0.0

%

0.0%

0.0

%

69.0%

47

.2

1973

0

0 0

0 0

0 47

0 47

0 0.0

%

0.0%

0.0

%

69.0%

48

.6

1974

0

0 0

0 0

0 52

3 52

3 0.0

%

0.0%

0.1

%

69.0%

52

.4

1975

0

0 0

0 0

1 51

3 51

4 0.0

%

0.0%

0.1

%

69.0%

56

.4

1976

0

0 0

0 0

1 53

9 54

0 0.0

%

0.0%

0.2

%

69.0%

54

.6

1977

0

0 0

0 0

2 68

2 68

5 0.0

%

0.0%

0.4

%

69.0%

53

.4

1978

0

0 0

0 0

6 77

9 78

5 0.0

%

0.0%

0.7

%

69.0%

57

.6

1979

0

0 0

0 0

7 59

1 59

8 0.0

%

0.0%

1.1

%

69.0%

60

.5

1980

0

0 0

0 0

12

569

581

0.0%

0.0

%

2.1%

69

.1%

59.7

19

81

0 0

0 0

0 22

64

4 66

6 0.0

%

0.0%

3.4

%

69.1%

60

.0

1982

0

0 0

0 1

45

696

742

0.0%

0.0

%

6.1%

69

.2%

57.9

19

83

0 0

0 0

1 65

63

6 70

4 0.1

%

0.0%

9.6

%

69.3%

56

.0

1984

0

0 1

0 3

100

644

748

0.2%

0.1

%

14.0%

69

.4%

55.9

19

85

0 1

1 0

8 16

4 72

2 89

6 0.2

%

0.1%

19

.4%

69.6%

60

.0

1986

0

2 2

0 21

24

4 71

7 98

6 0.4

%

0.2%

27

.3%

69.9%

60

.0

1987

0

2 3

0 41

30

7 62

7 98

0 0.5

%

0.2%

36

.0%

70.3%

60

.7

1988

0

4 3

0 53

32

1 50

0 88

2 0.8

%

0.4%

43

.3%

70.6%

59

.4

1989

0

4 3

1 73

29

4 40

1 77

6 1.1

%

0.5%

48

.4%

70.9%

55

.8

1990

0

5 3

2 10

2 30

5 34

3 76

0 1.3

%

0.6%

54

.9%

71.2%

57

.1

1991

0

6 2

6 16

6 30

7 28

1 76

8 1.8

%

0.8%

63

.4%

71.9%

62

.4

1992

0

8 2

12

246

322

250

841

2.7%

1.0

%

70.3%

72

.4%

59.5

59.5

0.0

0.00

0.00

0.000

19

93

0 17

3

24

335

325

191

897

5.0%

2.0

%

78.7%

73

.3%

60.0

60.6

0.7

0.61

0.61

0.009

19

94

0 16

2

41

365

289

116

829

7.2%

2.0

%

86.0%

73

.9%

56.7

57.9

1.2

0.96

1.56

0.023

19

95

1 27

3

74

440

270

66

881

11.9%

3.2

%

92.5%

74

.8%

55.1

56.9

1.8

1.58

3.15

0.046

19

96

1 31

3

131

494

229

47

936

17.7%

3.4

%

95.0%

75

.5%

64.9

67.7

2.7

2.55

5.70

0.084

19

97

1 40

5

203

532

215

31

1028

24

.3%

4.0%

97

.0%

76.1%

59

.4 62

.4 3.0

3.0

7 8.7

8 0.1

29

1998

3

48

7 25

8 57

4 19

2 28

11

10

28.5%

4.6

%

97.4%

76

.5%

57.7

60.9

3.2

3.57

12.35

0.1

81

1999

21

34

18

31

9 60

8 17

7 13

11

90

33.0%

4.7

%

98.9%

77

.0%

56.9

60.4

3.5

4.21

16.56

0.2

41

2000

19

26

18

39

9 56

6 14

5 17

11

90

38.8%

3.8

%

98.6%

77

.2%

57.5

61.3

3.8

4.50

21.06

0.3

07

2001

56

22

13

67

6 38

7 88

7

1249

61

.4%

6.2%

99

.4%

78.6%

56

.0 60

.8 4.8

5.9

7 27

.03

0.397

20

02

132

8 12

11

14

66

6 0

1337

94

.7%

10.5%

10

0.0%

80

.8%

54.1

60.4

6.2

8.34

35.37

0.5

19

62

Tabl

e B

14. C

ompl

etio

ns o

f new

dw

ellin

gs in

Gre

at B

ritai

n an

d th

e sa

ving

s du

e to

impr

oved

Bui

ldin

g R

egul

atio

ns

Estim

ated t

otal s

pace

and w

ater h

eatin

g co

nsum

ption

s (PJ

/year

) of h

omes

built

that y

ear

Estim

ated t

otal s

pace

and w

ater h

eatin

g co

nsum

ption

s (PJ

/year

) of h

omes

built

that y

ear if

they

had b

een b

uilt to

the

1965

Reg

ulatio

ns

Savin

gs du

e to B

uildin

g Reg

ulatio

ns

impr

ovem

ents

of ho

mes b

uilt in

that

year

(P

J/yea

r)

Savin

gs in

that

year

due t

o Buil

ding R

egula

tions

im

prov

emen

ts - f

or al

l hom

es bu

ilt sin

ce th

e int

rodu

ction

of th

e 197

6 Buil

ding R

egula

tions

(P

J/yea

r)

Savin

gs in

that

year

due t

o Buil

ding R

egula

tions

im

prov

emen

ts - f

or al

l hom

es bu

ilt sin

ce th

e int

rodu

ction

of th

e 197

6 Buil

ding R

egula

tions

(M

tC/ye

ar)

Year

Co

mplet

ions

Gas

Elec

tric

Solid

Oi

l/othe

r Ga

s El

ectric

So

lid

Oil/o

ther

Gas

Elec

tric

Solid

Oi

l/othe

r Ga

s El

ectric

So

lid

Oil/o

ther

Total

Ga

s El

ectric

So

lid

Oil/o

ther

Total

19

70

350,3

92

14.3

5.0

9.9

2.5

14.3

5.0

9.9

2.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

19

71

350,5

59

14.4

5.2

9.2

2.6

14.4

5.2

9.2

2.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

19

72

319,2

86

13.3

4.8

7.8

2.5

13.3

4.8

7.8

2.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

19

73

294,0

80

12.5

4.5

6.6

2.3

12.5

4.5

6.6

2.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

19

74

269,5

61

11.8

4.1

5.5

2.2

11.8

4.1

5.5

2.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

19

75

313,0

84

13.9

4.9

5.8

2.5

13.9

4.9

5.8

2.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

19

76

315,2

54

14.9

4.5

5.7

2.4

14.9

4.5

5.7

2.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

19

77

303,3

98

15.4

3.9

4.7

2.3

15.4

3.9

4.7

2.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

19

78

279,8

46

11.1

2.8

2.9

1.6

14.6

3.7

3.8

2.0

3.5

0.9

0.9

0.5

3.5

0.9

0.9

0.5

5.7

0.05

0.06

0.02

0.01

0.14

1979

24

4,570

10

.4 2.2

2.2

1.2

13

.7 2.9

2.9

1.6

3.2

0.7

0.7

0.4

6.7

1.5

1.6

0.9

10

.7 0.1

0 0.1

1 0.0

4 0.0

2 0.2

7 19

80

235,5

45

10.4

1.9

2.1

1.0

13.7

2.5

2.8

1.3

3.2

0.6

0.7

0.3

9.9

2.2

2.2

1.2

15.5

0.15

0.15

0.06

0.02

0.38

1981

19

9,805

9.1

1.5

1.7

0.8

11

.9 2.0

2.2

1.0

2.8

0.5

0.5

0.2

12

.8 2.6

2.8

1.4

19

.6 0.1

9 0.1

9 0.0

7 0.0

3 0.4

7 19

82

175,8

30

8.2

1.3

1.3

0.7

10.8

1.7

1.8

0.9

2.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

15.3

3.0

3.2

1.6

23.1

0.23

0.20

0.08

0.03

0.54

1983

19

9,320

9.7

1.3

1.3

0.7

12

.7 1.7

1.8

0.9

3.0

0.4

0.4

0.2

18

.3 3.4

3.6

1.8

27

.2 0.2

7 0.2

3 0.0

9 0.0

4 0.6

2 19

84

209,9

50

8.7

1.3

0.9

0.5

13.4

2.1

1.5

0.8

4.8

0.7

0.5

0.3

23.1

4.2

4.1

2.1

33.5

0.34

0.26

0.10

0.04

0.75

1985

19

6,695

8.2

1.2

0.9

0.5

12

.7 1.8

1.4

0.8

4.5

0.6

0.5

0.3

27

.6 4.8

4.6

2.4

39

.4 0.4

1 0.3

0 0.1

2 0.0

5 0.8

7 19

86

206,3

47

8.9

1.0

0.8

0.5

13.8

1.6

1.3

0.7

4.9

0.6

0.5

0.3

32.5

5.4

5.1

2.7

45.6

0.48

0.34

0.13

0.05

1.00

1987

21

6,439

9.4

1.1

0.7

0.6

14

.5 1.7

1.1

0.9

5.2

0.6

0.4

0.3

37

.7 6.0

5.5

3.0

52

.1 0.5

5 0.3

7 0.1

4 0.0

6 1.1

2 19

88

232,4

28

10.0

1.3

0.6

0.6

15.5

2.0

1.0

0.9

5.5

0.7

0.3

0.3

43.2

6.7

5.8

3.3

59.0

0.64

0.39

0.15

0.07

1.24

1989

21

1,180

9.1

1.2

0.4

0.5

14

.1 1.9

0.6

0.8

5.0

0.7

0.2

0.3

48

.2 7.4

6.0

3.6

65

.2 0.7

1 0.4

2 0.1

5 0.0

7 1.3

6 19

90

195,4

61

7.4

1.0

0.3

0.5

12.8

1.8

0.6

0.9

5.4

0.7

0.2

0.4

53.6

8.1

6.3

3.9

71.9

0.79

0.47

0.16

0.08

1.50

1991

18

4,726

6.9

1.0

0.3

0.4

12

.0 1.8

0.6

0.7

5.0

0.8

0.2

0.3

58

.6 8.9

6.5

4.2

78

.2 0.8

6 0.4

8 0.1

7 0.0

9 1.6

0 19

92

171,7

08

6.5

1.0

0.2

0.3

11.2

1.8

0.3

0.5

4.7

0.7

0.1

0.2

63.3

9.6

6.6

4.4

84.0

0.93

0.50

0.17

0.09

1.69

1993

17

8,813

6.8

1.1

0.1

0.3

11

.7 1.9

0.2

0.5

4.9

0.8

0.1

0.2

68

.2 10

.4 6.7

4.6

90

.0 1.0

0 0.4

8 0.1

5 0.0

9 1.7

3 19

94

186,4

13

7.0

1.2

0.0

0.3

12.1

2.1

0.0

0.5

5.1

0.9

0.0

0.2

73.3

11.3

6.7

4.8

96.2

1.08

0.51

0.16

0.10

1.84

1995

19

1,278

7.2

1.3

0.0

0.3

12

.5 2.2

0.0

0.5

5.2

0.9

0.0

0.2

78

.6 12

.3 6.7

5.0

10

2.6

1.16

0.53

0.15

0.10

1.94

1996

18

0,386

6.8

1.2

0.0

0.3

11

.8 2.1

0.0

0.5

4.9

0.9

0.0

0.2

83

.5 13

.1 6.7

5.2

10

8.6

1.23

0.51

0.15

0.11

1.99

1997

18

0,906

6.8

1.2

0.0

0.3

11

.8 2.1

0.0

0.4

5.0

0.9

0.0

0.2

88

.5 14

.0 6.7

5.4

11

4.6

1.30

0.49

0.15

0.11

2.05

1998

16

9,645

6.4

1.1

0.0

0.3

11

.1 1.8

0.0

0.6

4.6

0.8

0.0

0.2

93

.1 14

.8 6.7

5.6

12

0.3

1.36

0.53

0.15

0.12

2.15

1999

17

2,633

6.5

1.1

0.0

0.3

11

.2 1.9

0.0

0.6

4.7

0.8

0.0

0.2

97

.8 15

.6 6.7

5.9

12

6.0

1.42

0.55

0.15

0.12

2.23

2000

16

7,328

6.3

1.0

0.0

0.4

10

.9 1.7

0.0

0.7

4.6

0.7

0.0

0.3

10

2.4

16.3

6.7

6.2

131.6

1.4

9 0.5

7 0.1

5 0.1

2 2.3

3 20

01

162,0

32

6.1

1.0

0.0

0.4

10.6

1.7

0.0

0.6

4.4

0.7

0.0

0.3

106.9

17

.0 6.7

6.4

13

7.0

1.57

0.66

0.14

0.13

2.50

63

Tabl

e B

15. S

umm

ary

of e

nerg

y an

d ca

rbon

sav

ings

due

to e

nerg

y-ef

ficie

ncy

polic

ies

Savin

gs in

the s

tate

d ye

ar (P

J)

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

19

86

1987

19

88

1989

19

90

1991

19

92

1993

19

94

1995

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

Su

mmati

on

1978

to 20

01

Build

ing

Regu

latio

ns

5.70

10.69

15.49

19.56

23.14

27.19

33.51

39.43

45.65

52.12

59.00

65.19

71

.9478

.2484

.0390

.0196

.2210

2.59

108.6

011

4.61

120.2

612

6.01

131.6

013

7.00

1657

.8 Lo

ft, ca

vity w

all an

d co

nden

sing

boile

r gra

nts

3.28

17.93

28.55

36.11

45.91

55.46

62.07

67.54

72.57

77.06

79.37

80.46

80

.8881

.5082

.2783

.1885

.1488

.0090

.7693

.8397

.0810

0.78

105.3

510

9.93

1725

.0 Lo

ft ins

ulatio

n gr

ants

3.28

17.9

328

.55

36.1

145

.91

55.4

662

.07

67.5

472

.57

77.0

679

.37

80.4

6 80

.88

81.5

082

.27

83.1

884

.83

87.0

988

.84

89.9

390

.88

91.8

493

.02

94.3

616

74.9

Ca

vity w

all in

sulat

ion g

rant

s

0.

32

0.91

1.

82

3.65

5.

76

8.24

10

.91

13.2

744

.9

Cond

ensin

g bo

iler g

rant

s

0.

10

0.25

0.

45

0.70

1.

41

2.30

5.

2 La

bellin

g an

d m

inim

um st

anda

rds f

or b

oiler

s (ex

c. ef

fect

of g

rant

s)

0.6

1 1.5

6 3.1

5 5.6

0 8.5

3 11

.9015

.8619

.6524

.7391

.6 La

bellin

g an

d m

inim

um st

anda

rds f

or b

oiler

s (inc

. effe

ct of

gra

nts)

0.61

1.

56

3.15

5.

70

8.78

12

.35

16.5

621

.06

27.0

396

.8

Labe

lling

and

min

imum

stan

dard

s for

cold

and

wet a

pplia

nces

0.10

0.37

1.12

2.47

4.42

8.5

Labe

lling

and

mini

mum

stan

dard

s for

refri

gera

tors

0.

01

0.04

0.

10

0.22

0.

40

0.8

Labe

lling

and

mini

mum

stan

dard

s for

fridg

e-fre

ezer

s

0.01

0.

10

0.48

1.

19

2.17

3.

9 La

bellin

g an

d m

inim

um st

anda

rds f

or u

prigh

t fre

ezer

s

0.01

0.

03

0.12

0.

30

0.54

1.

0 La

bellin

g an

d m

inim

um st

anda

rds f

or ch

est f

reez

ers

0.

03

0.08

0.

15

0.27

0.

41

0.9

Labe

lling

and

mini

mum

stan

dard

s for

was

hing

mac

hines

0.05

0.

13

0.27

0.

50

0.90

1.

8 To

tal s

avin

gs o

f abo

ve en

ergy

effic

iency

pol

icies

8.9

828

.6144

.0455

.6869

.0682

.6595

.5810

6.97

118.2

212

9.17

138.3

714

5.65

152.8

215

9.74

166.3

017

3.80

182.9

319

3.74

204.9

621

7.07

229.6

224

3.78

259.0

727

6.08

3482

.9

Savin

gs in

the s

tate

d ye

ar (M

tC)

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

19

86

1987

19

88

1989

19

90

1991

19

92

1993

19

94

1995

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

Su

mmati

on

1978

to 20

01

Build

ing

Regu

latio

ns

0.144

0.267

0.381

0.472

0.543

0.625

0.748

0.874

0.996

1.124

1.243

1.356

1.5

041.5

961.6

891.7

311.8

431.9

431.9

952.0

552.1

532.2

332.3

312.4

9932

.34

Loft,

cavit

y wall

and

cond

ensin

g bo

iler g

rant

s 0.0

700.3

830.5

800.7

080.8

761.0

401.1

301.2

711.3

711.4

481.4

711.4

69

1.473

1.480

1.483

1.444

1.502

1.567

1.615

1.652

1.734

1.777

1.832

1.942

31.32

Lo

ft ins

ulatio

n gr

ants

0.07

00.

383

0.58

00.

708

0.87

61.

040

1.13

01.

271

1.37

11.

448

1.47

11.

469

1.47

31.

480

1.48

31.

444

1.48

31.

518

1.53

41.

531

1.56

01.

558

1.57

11.

638

30.0

9 Ca

vity w

all in

sulat

ion g

rant

s

0.

019

0.04

90.

079

0.11

80.

167

0.20

90.

241

0.27

01.

15

Cond

ensin

g bo

iler g

rant

s

0.

001

0.00

40.

007

0.01

00.

021

0.03

40.

08

Labe

lling

and

min

imum

stan

dard

s for

boi

lers (

exc.

effe

ct o

f gra

nts)

0.009

0.023

0.046

0.082

0.125

0.174

0.231

0.286

0.363

1.34

Labe

lling

and

mini

mum

stan

dard

s for

boil

ers (

inc. e

ffect

of g

rant

s)

0.

009

0.02

30.

046

0.08

40.

129

0.18

10.

241

0.30

70.

397

1.42

La

bellin

g an

d m

inim

um st

anda

rds f

or co

ld an

d we

t app

lianc

es

0.0

030.0

130.0

390.0

870.1

730.3

2 La

bellin

g an

d m

inim

um st

anda

rds f

or re

frige

rator

s

0.00

00.

001

0.00

40.

008

0.01

60.

03

Labe

lling

and

mini

mum

stan

dard

s for

fridg

e-fre

ezer

s

0.00

00.

003

0.01

70.

042

0.08

50.

15

Labe

lling

and

mini

mum

stan

dard

s for

upr

ight f

reez

ers

0.

000

0.00

10.

004

0.01

00.

021

0.04

La

bellin

g an

d m

inim

um st

anda

rds f

or ch

est f

reez

ers

0.

001

0.00

30.

005

0.00

90.

016

0.03

La

bellin

g an

d m

inim

um st

anda

rds f

or w

ashin

g m

achin

es

0.

002

0.00

50.

009

0.01

80.

035

0.07

To

tal s

avin

gs o

f abo

ve en

ergy

effic

iency

pol

icies

0.2

130.6

500.9

601.1

801.4

191.6

651.8

782.1

452.3

672.5

722.7

152.8

25

2.977

3.076

3.172

3.184

3.368

3.557

3.691

3.836

4.074

4.281

4.536

4.976

65.32


64

Part 3. Possible scenarios for future domestic energy use and carbon emissions to 2050

SUMMARY This part of the report describes a set of scenarios showing energy consumption and carbon emissions from the domestic sector up to 2050.

Calculations are made using an Excel model linked to the BREHOMES model of housing stock energy use. S-curves developed from past data for the uptake of energy efficiency measures provide data for the model.

In order to further increase carbon savings in the domestic sector changes to heating systems to introduce low carbon technologies, use of solar panels and photovoltaics are considered. In addition it is assumed that grid electricity moves towards a greater proportion of low carbon generation.

Five scenarios are presented. A reference scenario describes what is likely to happen if the uptake of energy efficiency measures continues to follow historical trends. Although savings may be achieved for an individual dwelling due to increased insulation, overall levels of energy consumption will rise with the increasing number of households in this scenario.

The policy scenario includes known policies up to 2011. This gives a 0.1% energy saving in 2010 and a 19.6% energy increase in 2050 in the total stock compared to 2000. The corres-ponding carbon saving is 2.8% in 2010 and an increase of 10.7% in 2050.

The efficiency scenario increases the uptake of energy efficiency measures to the fastest rate that seems feasible (e.g. based on the fastest historical rates seen). This gives a 6.9% energy saving in 2010 and a 2.2% saving in 2050 in the total stock compared to 2000. The corres-ponding carbon saving is 10.1% in 2010 and 8% in 2050.

In order to increase the carbon saving a set of step change scenarios was developed. Two of them are presented. These follow the efficiency scenario up to 2015 and then introduce further low carbon technologies after this. Thus, it is assumed for the step change scenarios that low carbon options for heating and electricity generation could be developed and introduced by 2015, after which they would need to be rapidly deployed.

The step change 1 scenario gives a 6.9% energy saving in 2010 and 8.6% in 2050 compared to 2000. The corresponding carbon saving is 10.1% in 2010 and 26.8% in 2050.

In order to reach a carbon saving of 60% the step change 2 scenario considers a greater uptake of low carbon heating systems. This gives an energy saving in 2010 of 6.9% and 19.9% in 2050 compared to 2000. The corresponding carbon saving is 10.1% in 2010 and 60.7% in 2050.

The costs and savings of each of the scenarios, relative to the reference scenario, are examined. Overall cumulative costs are about £10bn for the policy scenario, £22bn for the efficiency scenario, £34bn for step change 1 scenario, and £55bn for step change 2 scenario. However, in all scenarios the cumulative savings outweigh the costs by about 2012 indicating that, considered as an entire package, each of the scenarios would be cost effective for society as a whole. Iterative calculation indicates that all the scenarios would be cost effective at a discount rate of 17.1% or less.


65

3.1 INTRODUCTION Energy consumption in the average British dwelling in 2001 (80.8 GJ) was slightly lower than consumption in 1974 (82.2 GJ) (1). This is despite a large increase in the number of dwellings with central heating. Increasing levels of insulation both for new homes and as additions in existing dwellings, together with improvements to heating efficiencies, have thus successfully contained the energy use of the average household. Changes to the Building Regulations and the existence of grant schemes for measures such as loft insulation and cavity wall insulation have clearly had an important effect, as discussed in Part 2 of this report.

In developing scenarios it is necessary to take into account the trends that have been seen in the past, as outlined above. These are projected forward with adjustments for known distinct changes such as increases in grant levels.

Since most insulation measures will have been installed in all possible existing dwellings before 2050 it is necessary to look in more detail at possible efficient, low carbon, heating systems that might be available in the future if further savings are to be made.

The ultimate goal is a carbon neutral dwelling. This can be achieved by a combination of measures. Firstly the energy consumption should be as low as possible. Heating is currently the main energy use so insulation to ensure that as little heat as possible is lost from the house is important. The type of fuel and efficiency of the heating system will determine the amount of carbon emitted.

The step change scenarios presented in this part of the report look at ways of achieving a 60% carbon saving by 2050. This has been achieved by an increasing use of solar panels, photovoltaics, heat pumps and biomass boilers together with an electricity supply increasingly generated by low carbon sources.

3.2 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS The uptake of a product or measure can be assumed to be proportional to time and the size of the remaining market. This can be described by an equation of the form:

L%=S%{1-exp(-k(t-t0)2}

Where L% is the ownership level in a particular year S% is the eventual saturation level t is the time (i.e. the year) t0 is the year when the product or measure was first introduced

k is a constant that describes the rate of uptake (i.e. describes the shape of the s-curve)

This equation has the classic s-curve shape that is seen for most products as they go through the three stages of relatively slow initial uptake, followed by a much faster rate as they become mass market products and finally another slow uptake as the product approaches saturation level.

The reference, policy and efficiency scenarios have been built using s-curves for the uptake of insulation products. In the reference scenario these are assumed to follow current trends based on historical data up to 2001. The policy scenario includes known policies such as those described in the EEC consultation document (2), the Building Regulations consultation (3) and the Government’s Energy Efficiency Action Plan (4).

These insulation improvements are modelled together with information on the efficiency of heating systems from the Market Transformation programme (5) and details of energy use for lights and appliances and cooking from DECADE (6).

Previous work for the Market Transformation Programme on windows (7) is used to determine savings due to glazing improvements through labelling initiatives, and work on cooling (8) provides the basis for the likely additional energy use for domestic cooling which is assumed to be the same in each scenario.

For the efficiency scenario solid wall insulation has also been included.

A mean internal temperature of 22°C maximum has been assumed. Although higher than the assumption for previous scenarios it is based on recent German research (9) that suggests this is the level at which people living in low energy ‘passive’ houses are comfortable. It thus


66

seems reasonable to take this as representing the typical level at which people will probably stop taking heat loss savings as comfort increases.

External temperature has been allowed to rise by 1.5°C by 2050. This is consistent with current trends and with climate scenarios produced by the Hadley Centre.

Data from the Clear Skies grant scheme and various other sources have been used to estimate uptake of solar panels (10). A variety of sources, including data from the DTI Solar PV programme have also been referred to in order to produce similar estimates for the uptake of photovoltaics (11).

Little information is available on policies beyond 2020. Efficiencies of heating systems have been assumed to continue at 2020 levels and carbon emission factors have been assumed to maintain their 2020 values in the policy and efficiency scenarios. Insulation levels generally saturate at this time or soon afterwards following the s-curves that have already been derived for the different scenarios.

A forward projection of ODPM figures for households has been used and is the same in all scenarios, as is the rate of new build and dwelling demolition.

3.3 STEP CHANGE SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS In order to achieve the carbon savings necessary to meet a 60% saving in 2050 radical changes to heating systems and electricity generation have been considered.

A series of step change scenarios has been developed. These are based on the insulation measures achieved under the efficiency scenario but replace conventional heating systems with low carbon options. Each step change gives more dwellings low carbon sources of heating and electricity. As these are not yet mass-market products a time delay has been introduced to allow for development of the market. Thus, the efficiency scenario is followed until 2015 by which time it is expected that new technologies such as heat pumps will be increasingly available and will then start to be taken up in significant numbers.

Step change 1 increases the number of solar panels to 50% of dwellings by 2050. It also has 50% of dwellings with photovoltaics by 2050. In dwellings with electric central heating 50% have heat pumps in 2050 and all use these to heat their water. Similarly, in dwellings with solid fuel central heating 50% use wood, which is considered to be carbon neutral, by 2050. 50% of electricity is also assumed to be generated by low carbon sources by 2050. The numbers of homes heating with conventional gas and oil systems remain as in the efficiency scenario, with the same efficiencies assumed.

Step change 2 builds on the previous scenario but now has 50% of all centrally heated homes using heat pumps by 2050. A further 50% of the remaining central heating systems use wood / biomass by 2050. The remainder use the conventional heating systems that they would have used under the efficiency scenario, with the same efficiencies.

These steps are chosen to represent a possible progression to a low carbon domestic sector. They use technologies that are currently available, introduced on a timescale that seems feasible given past experience of how quickly the heating market can be transformed given the necessary conditions.

3.4 SCENARIO DESCRIPTIONS Reference scenario

The reference scenario provides a base line for comparing scenarios. Figure 46 shows the s-curves used for the uptake of insulation and other energy efficiency measures. These are based on fitting curves to data collected over a number of years.

As can be seen in Figure 46 some measures such as hot water tank insulation are already close to saturation, whereas others such as cavity wall insulation will only be approaching saturation in 2050.

Policy scenario

Policies which have already been announced will change the rate of uptake of insulation measures shown in Figure 46. Figures from the documents referred to earlier (2, 3, 4) have been


67

Figure 46. Market penetration of home energy-efficiency related measures

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f pot

entia

l

Condensing boilers(scenarios developed under the Market Transformation programme)


Hot water tank insulation

Central heating

Doubleglazing

Draught proofing

Loftinsulation(any) Ref

Scenario 2

ETP

Scenario 1

used to derive new s-curves for existing dwellings and appropriate U-values for new dwellings. The figures for additional insulation measures in the 2005–2008 period and assumptions of similar measures in 2008–2011 have been used to increase the uptake rate of measures such as cavity wall and loft insulation in existing homes. For new dwellings typical U-values for 2005 and 2010, taken from the Building Regulations consultation, have been used.

Work under the Market Transformation Programme on the uptake of condensing boilers is illustrated in Figure 46. This shows the different uptake rates and saturation values that result from four different scenario assumptions. Three of the scenarios that are illustrated are used here. Scenario 2 assumes that it is possible for 80% of boiler sales to be condensing boilers, and this has been used for the policy scenario (similarly, Ref and ETP have been used for the reference and efficiency scenarios respectively).

Demand for lights and appliances and cooking have been taken from the DECADE scenario 1, which is a scenario that makes realistic assumptions about the rates at which energy efficient appliances might be taken up in practice (the DECADE reference and ETP scenarios have similarly been used for the reference and efficiency scenarios respectively).

Possible labelling-related improvements for double glazed windows have been taken from scenarios developed for the Market Transformation programme.

Data from the Clear Skies grant scheme and other sources has been used to estimate uptake rates for solar water heating panels. Various sources, including data from the DTI Solar PV programme, have been used to derive similar figures for photovoltaics. The resulting estimates suggest that by 2050 2.5% of roofs could have solar panels for water heating and 6.5% of dwellings could have photovoltaics to generate some of their electricity.

Efficiency scenario

The efficiency scenario looks at past uptake rates of insulation measures. It then uses the fastest rate of uptake that has been seen in the past as a guide to what could be achieved in future. It is assumed that if this rate of uptake has been possible before, the capacity is avail-able to achieve that level of uptake again. It is then possible to derive a new s-curve for the future uptake.

By following this method cavity wall insulation reaches 100% of potential in about 2025 and most other insulation measures saturate before that.

For the efficiency scenario the ETP scenario for condensing boilers is used. This scenario is based on all that is economically and technically possible. Similarly for windows the fastest likely uptake scenario is used.

The DECADE model for lights and appliances and cooking also includes an ETP scenario which is used in the efficiency scenario.


68

Step change 1 scenario

The first step change scenario uses the uptake rates for insulation measures from the efficiency scenario. In order to provide further carbon savings low carbon and high efficiency heating systems are introduced. This approach is considered rather than radical measures like adding further external insulation to already insulated cavity walls, or demolishing large parts of the stock and replacing them with zero carbon dwellings, because it seems much more likely to be feasible, given that past experience has shown that the market for heating systems can be transformed dramatically in 30 years or so.

It is thus assumed that electric central heating is provided by heat pumps in 50% of dwellings with electric central heating by 2050. Similarly for solid fuel central heating 50% use wood or biomass boilers by 2050. For gas and oil heating the numbers of homes, and the efficiencies, are taken to be the same as in the efficiency scenario (i.e. this scenario assumes that there will be no change in the mix of generic forms of heating [gas, oil, solid and electric] as com-pared with the efficiency scenario, but it assumes that solid fuel and electric heating becomes less carbon intensive through the introduction of different appliances).

Heat pumps with an efficiency of 320% when used for heating and 160% when used for water heating have been assumed for the step change scenarios.

The step change scenarios also increase the uptake of solar water heating panels and photo-voltaics. These increase to 50% of roofs having solar panels and 50% of dwellings having photovoltaics by 2050.

There are already targets for 20% of electricity to be generated by renewables in 2020. Technically it would be possible to generate 50% of electricity from low carbon sources by 2050 and this is also included in the step change scenarios.


Although the step change 1 scenario goes a long way towards using low carbon technologies it is not enough to achieve a 60% carbon saving. In order to achieve this it is necessary to increase the uptake of low carbon heating systems by fundamentally altering the mix of generic forms of heating from what is assumed in the efficiency scenario.

Thus, step change 2 increases the number of dwellings with heat pumps to 50% of dwellings that have central heating by 2050. Of those that do not have heat pumps for their central heating 50% use wood or biomass boilers by 2050. The remainder use the conventional heating systems that they would have had under the efficiency scenario.

Although heating systems are not replaced often it is possible over a period of 30 years or so to change a majority of heating systems. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that in 1971 only 34% of dwellings had central heating but by 2001 this had risen to 90% (see Figure 46). Moreover, the bulk of this increase was accounted for by just one form of heating; namely gas central heating.

3.5 RESULTS Figure 47 shows the energy consumption for each of the scenarios. The step change scenarios follow the efficiency scenario until 2015 but then lead to lower energy consumption. It is clear from the reference scenario that if no action is taken energy consumption will continue to rise and even the policy scenario only holds the consumption steady to about 2020, after which it begins to increase again.

Figure 48 shows the carbon emissions associated with the energy consumption in Figure 47. Step change 2 scenario diverges more rapidly from the efficiency scenario when considering carbon emissions. This is because the changes to heating systems and electricity generation have been aimed at saving carbon rather than energy.

Figure 48 also shows clearly that the only one of these scenarios that is going to reach the 60% saving by 2050 is step change 2. The others are either rising or decreasing at a rate that will not achieve the savings until much later than 2050.

Tables C1–C10 in Appendix C provide further details on the energy consumption and carbon emissions for each scenario by fuel and end use.


69

Figure 47. UK energy consumption for different scenarios

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 2045 2048

PJ

referencepolicyefficiencystep changestep change 2

Figure 48. UK carbon emissions for different scenarios

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 2045 2048

MtC

referencepolicyefficiencystep changestep change 2

60% saving

Table C1 shows increasing energy use and carbon emissions in the reference scenario. In general energy use for all end uses is rising. There is a slight fall in heating energy in 2045. This is due to the internal temperatures reaching saturation level. However by 2050 it is rising again due to an increase in the number of households. Carbon emissions remain at about 40 MtC until 2020 when they start to rise.

Table C3 shows energy use increasing to 2050 in the policy scenario after being held steady from 2010 to 2015. It is however 275 PJ lower than for the reference scenario in 2050. Carbon emissions are held to below 40 MtC until 2035 when they begin to rise. In 2050 they are 6 MtC less than the reference scenario.

Table C5 shows reducing energy consumption in the efficiency scenario until 2025 when it rises but by 2050 it has reached 603PJ less than the reference scenario in 2050 and 44 PJ less than the 2000 value. Carbon emissions are also less than in 2000 by 3 MtC.

Table C7 shows reducing energy consumption in the step change 1 scenario until 2025 and then rising to 2050. However by 2050 it is still 169PJ less than in 2000. For this scenario carbon emissions fall by 10 MtC between 2000 and 2050.


70

Table C9 for the step change 2 scenario also shows energy consumption reducing until 2025 when there is a small rise until it starts reducing again after about 2035. In 2050 it is 389 PJ less than in 2000. Carbon emissions between 2000 and 2050 fall by 23 MtC meeting a target of 60% reduction by 2050. More than half of this saving comes from heating systems. This comes with a change back to solid fuel and away from gas and oil. The solid fuel is no longer fossil fuel but sustainable biomass. Electricity consumption increases by 60 PJ between 2000 and 2050 but the carbon emissions decrease by 6 MtC as this is generated by an increasing proportion of low carbon sources.

Tables C11, C12 and C13 show the carbon emission factors used for each scenario. The reference, policy and efficiency scenarios all use the same emission factors. The electricity emission factors for the reference, policy and efficiency scenarios (Table C11) were provided by DTI up to 2020 (12). The electricity emission factors after 2020 have been assumed to remain at the 2020 value for these scenarios. The electricity factors change for the step change scenarios where 50% of electricity is considered as generated by zero carbon sources in 2050. The solid fuel factors also change for the step change scenarios depending on the mix of biomass and fossil fuel.

The scenarios demonstrate the limit to current energy efficiency measures concentrating on insulation and condensing boilers. Growing household numbers mean total energy consump-tion in the domestic sector will increase even if individual household consumption decreases unless more extreme measures are taken.

The step change scenarios consider changes to heating systems and energy generation that are currently considered possible. These are already emerging technologies that, under the right conditions, in 30 years time could be mass-market products in the same way that loft insulation is now.

These are not the only solutions to achieving a 60% carbon reduction. New technologies may emerge but Figure 46 shows that it has taken many years for condensing boilers to reach the second mass market stage of uptake. Thus, it is clear that if measures are not taken soon to introduce low carbon technologies it will be extremely difficult to reach the 60% carbon reduction target by 2050.

3.6 COSTS AND SAVINGS OF THE SCENARIOS Part 2 of this report looked at energy savings from energy efficiency policies including grants. This concluded that for each £1million of grant expenditure 0.033 PJ of energy is saved. This figure, converted into a cost per tonne of carbon using the average carbon emission factors implied by the reference scenario, has been used to estimate the costs and savings of the current scenarios. The savings have been worked out from applying current fuel prices taken from SAP 2005 (see Table C16) to the energy savings of each scenario relative to the reference scenario.

Policy scenario

Figure 49 shows the cumulative expenditures for the policy scenario and the corresponding cumulative savings. These figures are also presented in Table C14, along with the correspon-ding figures for the efficiency scenario. The figures for the step change scenarios are shown in Table C15.

Figure 49 shows that initially costs outweigh savings but there is a break even point in about 2014. This implies that there is a discount rate below which the savings assessed over the period 2001 to 2050 will always be cost effective. In this case the discount rate is 19.2%. This is a relatively high figure and it suggests that the policy scenario taken as an entire package would be cost effective for society as a whole.

Efficiency scenario

Figure 50 shows the cost and savings for the efficiency scenario. This shows that savings outweigh costs slightly earlier than the policy scenario in about 2012. The discount rate at which this scenario is cost effective is similar to the policy scenario at 19.1%.


71

Figure 49. Cumulative expenditures and savings for the Policy scenario relative to the Reference scenario

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046

Year

£M

Expenditures Savings

It is interesting to note that the cumulative cost of this scenario is shown as being about £22bn (Table C14). This is very close to the figure derived from the work on the cost effectiveness of energy efficiency measures described in Part 1 of this report which indicated that exhausting all of the existing cost-effective potential for conventional energy efficiency measures would cost up to £21bn. Thus, the approximate method of estimating costs used in this part of the report matches the result of a detailed bottom-up approach to calculating costs extremely well.

This suggests that the figures obtained in the following for the step change scenarios should be broadly indicative of the likely costs, although it should be noted that there are likely to be costs associated with transforming the electricity supply system that the methodology does not fully capture (the fact that the methodology is based on carbon rather than energy does, however, mean that some cost is attributed to this). Such costs are, of course, not really anything directly to do with domestic energy efficiency policy and would generally be determined as a completely separate exercise.

Figure 50. Cumulative expenditures and savings for the Efficiency scenario relative to the Reference scenario

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046

Year

£M



72


Bearing in mind the caveats noted above, Figure 51 shows the likely costs and savings for step change 1 scenario. In this scenario savings also outweigh costs in about 2012. After 2025 costs start to rise more sharply in this scenario but savings still outweigh costs in the later years. The discount rate at which this scenario is cost effective is slightly lower at 18.6%.

Figure 51. Cumulative expenditures and savings for Step change 1 scenario relative to the Reference scenario

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046

Year

£M



Figure 52 shows the savings and costs for step change 2 scenario. This again shows that savings outweigh costs in 2012. It also shows that, although this is the highest cost scenario (cumulative costs of about £55bn), in the later years savings still continue to outweigh costs. The discount rate for this scenario is the lowest (17.1%) but this is still quite high, showing that all scenarios are likely to be cost effective for society when considered as entire packages.

Figure 52. Cumulative expenditures and savings for Step change 2 scenario relative to the Reference scenario

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046

Year

£M



73

References

1. L D Shorrock and J I Utley. Domestic Energy Fact File 2003. BRE Report BR457. 2003. 2. Energy Efficiency Commitment from April 2005. Consultation proposals May 2004. Defra 2004. 3. The Building Act 1984. The Building Regulations 2000. Proposals for amending Part L of the

Building Regulations and implementing the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. A consul-tation document. ODPM July 2004.

4. Energy Efficiency. The Government’s Plan for Action. Defra. April 2004. 5. Data taken from an update to the boiler model prepared under the Market Transformation

Programme (www.mtprog.com). 6. Run 5 data from DECADE model supplied by Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University. 7. Data taken from windows scenarios prepared under the Market Transformation Programme

(www.mtprog.com). 8. Electricity use for air conditioning by households in the USA. G Henderson. Paper presented to

Technical Working Party L of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee. April 2004. 9. J Schnieders. CEPHEUS – measurement results from more than 100 dwelling units in

passive houses. Proceedings of ECEEE 2003 Summer Study. pp 341 - 351. 10. A number of sources were consulted for information on solar water heating. These included

savings figures quoted in the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, numerous websites that provided an indication of current ownership levels, and also, to check that uptake rate assumptions looked consistent, first year data on Clear Skies grant applications (personal com-munication Chris Roberts, BRE) was also checked.

11. Several sources were consulted for data on photovoltaics. These included the online information service of the British Photovoltaic Association (www.pv-uk.org.uk), the International Energy Agency website (www.oja-services.nl/iea-pvps/statistics/index.htm), the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, and, to check that uptake rate assumptions looked consistent, data on the DTI’s Solar PV programme (www.est.org.uk/solar/resources/agg_data.cfm) was also checked.

12. Personal communication, David Wilson, DTI.


74

Appendix C: Tables

Table C1. Reference scenario summary by end use Table C2. Reference scenario summary by fuel

Energy consumption by end use (PJ) Consumption by fuel (PJ)

Year Space heating Water Cooking Lights and

appliances Cooling Total Year Solid Gas Electric Oil Total

2000 1197.3 453.7 54.9 254.5 0.0 1960.4 2000 90.4 1331.7 402.7 135.6 1960.4

2005 1259.7 447.7 54.6 273.2 0.2 2035.4 2005 89.6 1403.1 411.7 131.1 2035.4

2010 1281.1 438.2 55.3 288.1 0.4 2063.1 2010 84.8 1424.9 423.8 129.5 2063.1

2015 1329.9 437.6 56.0 297.5 0.8 2121.7 2015 86.3 1462.7 436.3 136.3 2121.7

2020 1400.8 441.6 56.5 307.0 1.2 2207.1 2020 89.9 1522.1 450.2 144.9 2207.1

2025 1492.6 447.6 58.4 317.1 1.7 2317.3 2025 94.1 1602.1 466.8 154.3 2317.3

2030 1579.8 454.9 60.2 327.1 2.2 2424.2 2030 98.3 1679.7 483.2 163.0 2424.2

2035 1679.9 461.9 62.1 337.2 2.9 2543.9 2035 103.0 1768.3 500.1 172.6 2543.9

2040 1700.0 468.7 63.9 347.2 3.7 2583.4 2040 104.2 1790.3 513.3 175.7 2583.4

2045 1697.8 474.8 65.8 357.2 4.5 2600.1 2045 104.3 1793.5 525.4 176.9 2600.1

2050 1698.0 480.8 67.6 367.3 5.4 2619.1 2050 104.6 1798.5 537.7 178.3 2619.1

Carbon emission by end use (MtC) Carbon emission by fuel (MtC)



2000 20.0 7.9 1.3 8.9 0.0 38.2 2000 2.0 19.4 14.1 2.7 38.2

2005 21.1 8.1 1.4 10.3 0.0 41.0 2005 2.1 20.7 15.6 2.6 41.0

2010 21.0 7.8 1.3 9.5 0.0 39.6 2010 2.0 21.0 14.0 2.6 39.6

2015 21.7 7.7 1.3 9.5 0.0 40.2 2015 2.1 21.5 13.9 2.7 40.2

2020 22.7 7.7 1.2 9.0 0.0 40.7 2020 2.2 22.4 13.2 2.9 40.7

2025 24.2 7.8 1.3 9.3 0.0 42.6 2025 2.3 23.6 13.7 3.1 42.6

2030 25.6 7.9 1.3 9.6 0.1 44.5 2030 2.4 24.7 14.2 3.3 44.5

2035 27.3 8.0 1.3 9.9 0.1 46.6 2035 2.5 26.0 14.7 3.5 46.6

2040 27.6 8.2 1.4 10.2 0.1 47.4 2040 2.5 26.4 15.0 3.5 47.4

2045 27.6 8.3 1.4 10.5 0.1 47.8 2045 2.5 26.4 15.4 3.5 47.8

2050 27.6 8.4 1.5 10.8 0.2 48.3 2050 2.5 26.5 15.8 3.6 48.3


75

Table C3. Policy scenario summary by end use Table C4. Policy scenario summary by fuel




2000 1197.3 453.7 54.9 254.5 0.0 1960.4 2000 90.4 1331.7 402.7 135.6 1960.4

2005 1255.4 446.6 53.3 260.3 0.2 2015.8 2005 90.2 1396.4 397.7 131.5 2015.8

2010 1238.2 428.7 51.9 240.0 0.4 1959.2 2010 86.0 1370.8 372.5 129.9 1959.2

2015 1276.5 421.2 50.7 209.7 0.8 1958.8 2015 89.3 1386.1 344.7 138.7 1958.8

2020 1300.8 420.4 49.5 195.6 1.2 1967.5 2020 92.6 1396.1 332.7 146.1 1967.5

2025 1353.0 424.2 51.1 201.6 1.7 2031.5 2025 95.9 1437.8 344.1 153.7 2031.5

2030 1433.9 430.9 52.8 207.4 2.2 2127.3 2030 100.5 1507.1 356.5 163.1 2127.3

2035 1540.1 438.8 54.4 213.2 2.9 2249.4 2035 106.1 1599.6 369.8 173.9 2249.4

2040 1572.5 446.5 56.0 218.8 3.7 2297.4 2040 108.1 1631.6 379.3 178.4 2297.4

2045 1582.3 452.0 57.6 224.4 4.5 2320.8 2045 109.0 1643.6 387.4 180.8 2320.8

2050 1590.5 458.9 59.2 229.9 5.4 2344.0 2050 109.9 1655.4 395.6 183.1 2344.0




2000 20.0 7.9 1.3 8.9 0.0 38.2 2000 2.0 19.4 14.1 2.7 38.2

2005 21.1 8.1 1.3 9.8 0.0 40.4 2005 2.2 20.6 15.0 2.6 40.4

2010 20.4 7.6 1.2 7.9 0.0 37.1 2010 2.1 20.2 12.3 2.6 37.1

2015 21.0 7.5 1.1 6.7 0.0 36.3 2015 2.1 20.4 11.0 2.8 36.3

2020 21.2 7.4 1.1 5.7 0.0 35.5 2020 2.2 20.6 9.8 2.9 35.5

2025 22.1 7.5 1.1 5.9 0.0 36.6 2025 2.3 21.2 10.1 3.1 36.6

2030 23.4 7.6 1.1 6.1 0.1 38.3 2030 2.4 22.2 10.5 3.3 38.3

2035 25.2 7.7 1.2 6.2 0.1 40.4 2035 2.5 23.5 10.8 3.5 40.4

2040 25.7 7.9 1.2 6.4 0.1 41.3 2040 2.6 24.0 11.1 3.6 41.3

2045 25.9 7.9 1.2 6.6 0.1 41.8 2045 2.6 24.2 11.4 3.6 41.8

2050 26.0 8.1 1.3 6.7 0.2 42.3 2050 2.6 24.4 11.6 3.7 42.3


76

Table C5. Efficiency scenario summary by end use Table C6. Efficiency scenario summary by fuel




2000 1197.3 453.7 54.9 254.5 0.0 1960.4 2000 90.4 1331.7 402.7 135.6 1960.4

2005 1217.6 441.9 53.1 224.3 0.2 1937.2 2005 88.6 1359.6 360.0 129.0 1937.2

2010 1152.6 420.7 51.9 200.0 0.4 1825.7 2010 82.8 1288.8 329.2 124.8 1825.7

2015 1123.5 409.4 50.7 184.2 0.8 1768.7 2015 83.4 1243.2 313.1 128.9 1768.7

2020 1096.0 405.7 49.5 178.8 1.2 1731.2 2020 84.6 1207.0 307.2 132.4 1731.2

2025 1079.7 407.3 51.1 184.2 1.7 1723.9 2025 84.9 1189.7 314.8 134.5 1723.9

2030 1129.5 413.0 52.8 189.5 2.2 1787.0 2030 88.3 1232.1 325.3 141.3 1787.0

2035 1196.9 420.5 54.4 194.7 2.9 1869.3 2035 92.2 1292.1 336.2 148.9 1869.3

2040 1203.5 427.9 56.0 199.7 3.7 1890.8 2040 93.1 1302.8 343.8 151.1 1890.8

2045 1194.7 432.7 57.6 204.8 4.5 1894.3 2045 93.0 1299.3 350.3 151.6 1894.3

2050 1202.7 439.4 59.2 209.7 5.4 1916.4 2050 93.8 1311.1 357.9 153.6 1916.4




2000 20.0 7.9 1.3 8.9 0.0 38.2 2000 2.0 19.4 14.1 2.7 38.2

2005 20.5 8.0 1.3 8.5 0.0 38.3 2005 2.1 20.0 13.6 2.6 38.3

2010 19.0 7.5 1.2 6.6 0.0 34.3 2010 2.0 19.0 10.8 2.5 34.3

2015 18.5 7.3 1.1 5.9 0.0 32.9 2015 2.0 18.3 10.0 2.6 32.9

2020 18.0 7.2 1.1 5.2 0.0 31.5 2020 2.0 17.8 9.0 2.6 31.5

2025 17.7 7.2 1.1 5.4 0.0 31.5 2025 2.0 17.5 9.2 2.7 31.5

2030 18.5 7.3 1.1 5.6 0.1 32.6 2030 2.1 18.1 9.5 2.8 32.6

2035 19.7 7.4 1.2 5.7 0.1 34.1 2035 2.2 19.0 9.9 3.0 34.1

2040 19.8 7.6 1.2 5.9 0.1 34.5 2040 2.2 19.2 10.1 3.0 34.5

2045 19.6 7.7 1.2 6.0 0.1 34.7 2045 2.2 19.1 10.3 3.0 34.7

2050 19.8 7.8 1.3 6.1 0.2 35.1 2050 2.3 19.3 10.5 3.1 35.1


77

Table C7. Step change 1 scenario by end use Table C8. Step change 1 scenario by fuel




2000 1197.3 453.7 54.9 254.5 0.0 1960.4 2000 90.4 1331.7 402.7 135.6 1960.4

2005 1217.6 441.9 53.1 224.3 0.2 1937.2 2005 88.6 1359.6 360.0 129.0 1937.2

2010 1152.6 420.7 51.9 200.0 0.4 1825.7 2010 82.8 1288.8 329.2 124.8 1825.7

2015 1123.5 409.4 50.7 184.2 0.8 1768.7 2015 83.4 1243.2 313.1 128.9 1768.7

2020 1095.0 402.0 49.5 177.0 1.2 1724.7 2020 84.6 1203.9 303.9 132.4 1724.7

2025 1076.4 396.6 51.1 179.0 1.7 1704.8 2025 84.9 1180.9 304.4 134.5 1704.8

2030 1122.6 392.7 52.8 179.7 2.2 1749.9 2030 88.3 1215.4 304.9 141.3 1749.9

2035 1185.5 388.7 54.4 179.3 2.9 1810.7 2035 92.2 1265.9 303.7 148.9 1810.7

2040 1188.2 383.4 56.0 178.2 3.7 1809.5 2040 93.1 1266.1 299.2 151.1 1809.5

2045 1176.1 375.6 57.6 176.7 4.5 1790.6 2045 93.0 1251.7 294.3 151.6 1790.6

2050 1181.7 370.0 59.2 175.3 5.4 1791.7 2050 93.8 1252.6 291.7 153.6 1791.7




2000 20.0 7.9 1.3 8.9 0.0 38.2 2000 2.0 19.4 14.1 2.7 38.2

2005 20.5 8.0 1.3 8.5 0.0 38.3 2005 2.1 20.0 13.6 2.6 38.3

2010 19.0 7.5 1.2 6.6 0.0 34.3 2010 2.0 19.0 10.8 2.5 34.3

2015 18.5 7.3 1.1 5.9 0.0 32.9 2015 2.0 18.3 10.0 2.6 32.9

2020 17.7 6.9 1.0 4.8 0.0 30.5 2020 1.9 17.7 8.2 2.6 30.5

2025 17.2 6.7 1.0 4.5 0.0 29.5 2025 1.8 17.4 7.7 2.7 29.5

2030 17.8 6.5 1.0 4.2 0.1 29.5 2030 1.7 17.9 7.1 2.8 29.5

2035 18.6 6.3 1.0 3.9 0.1 29.8 2035 1.6 18.6 6.5 3.0 29.8

2040 18.4 6.1 1.0 3.6 0.1 29.2 2040 1.5 18.6 6.0 3.0 29.2

2045 18.1 5.9 1.0 3.3 0.1 28.3 2045 1.4 18.4 5.5 3.0 28.3

2050 18.1 5.8 1.0 3.1 0.1 27.9 2050 1.4 18.4 5.1 3.1 27.9


78

Table C9. Step change 2 scenario by end use Table C10. Step change 2 scenario by fuel




2000 1197.3 453.7 54.9 254.5 0.0 1960.4 2000 90.4 1331.7 402.7 135.6 1960.4

2005 1217.6 441.9 53.1 224.3 0.2 1937.2 2005 88.6 1359.6 360.0 129.0 1937.2

2010 1152.6 420.7 51.9 200.0 0.4 1825.7 2010 82.8 1288.8 329.2 124.8 1825.7

2015 1123.5 409.4 50.7 184.2 0.8 1768.7 2015 83.4 1243.2 313.1 128.9 1768.7

2020 1099.4 395.7 49.5 177.0 1.2 1722.8 2020 131.2 1153.2 311.7 126.6 1722.8

2025 1096.7 375.9 51.1 179.0 1.7 1704.4 2025 244.4 1014.1 330.5 115.4 1704.4

2030 1155.2 351.6 52.8 179.7 2.2 1741.5 2030 398.8 881.4 358.7 102.6 1741.5

2035 1209.8 324.0 54.4 179.3 2.9 1770.4 2035 548.7 742.2 391.7 87.8 1770.4

2040 1181.2 295.4 56.0 178.2 3.7 1714.4 2040 634.8 588.4 419.9 71.3 1714.4

2045 1125.3 267.1 57.6 176.7 4.5 1631.3 2045 669.0 461.6 443.0 57.7 1631.3

2050 1086.4 244.6 59.2 175.3 5.4 1571.1 2050 677.0 381.9 463.1 49.1 1571.1




2000 20.0 7.9 1.3 8.9 0.0 38.2 2000 2.0 19.4 14.1 2.7 38.2

2005 20.5 8.0 1.3 8.5 0.0 38.3 2005 2.1 20.0 13.6 2.6 38.3

2010 19.0 7.5 1.2 6.6 0.0 34.3 2010 2.0 19.0 10.8 2.5 34.3

2015 18.5 7.3 1.1 5.9 0.0 32.9 2015 2.0 18.3 10.0 2.6 32.9

2020 17.0 6.6 1.0 4.8 0.0 29.4 2020 1.5 17.0 8.5 2.5 29.4

2025 15.1 6.1 0.9 4.5 0.0 26.6 2025 1.1 14.9 8.3 2.3 26.6

2030 13.4 5.7 0.9 4.2 0.1 24.3 2030 0.9 13.0 8.3 2.1 24.3

2035 11.8 5.2 0.9 3.9 0.1 21.8 2035 0.7 10.9 8.4 1.8 21.8

2040 9.8 4.8 0.9 3.6 0.1 19.0 2040 0.5 8.7 8.4 1.4 19.0

2045 8.1 4.3 0.9 3.3 0.1 16.6 2045 0.4 6.8 8.2 1.2 16.6

2050 7.2 3.8 0.9 3.1 0.1 15.0 2050 0.3 5.6 8.1 1.0 15.0


79

Table C11 Carbon emission factors for reference, policy and efficiency scenarios (kgC/GJ)

Year Solid Gas Electric Oil 2000 21.6 14.6 35.0 20.0 2005 24.0 14.7 37.8 20.0 2010 24.0 14.7 33.0 20.0 2015 24.0 14.7 31.9 20.0 2020 24.0 14.7 29.3 20.0 2025 24.0 14.7 29.3 20.0 2030 24.0 14.7 29.3 20.0 2035 24.0 14.7 29.3 20.0 2040 24.0 14.7 29.3 20.0 2045 24.0 14.7 29.3 20.0 2050 24.0 14.7 29.3 20.0

Table C12 Carbon emission factors for step change 1 scenario (kgC/GJ)


Table C13 Carbon emission factors for step change 2 scenario (kgC/GJ)



80

Table C16 Current fuel prices from SAP 2005

Fuel prices used to determine the savings (£/GJ) Solid Gas Electric Oil 5.00 4.19 7.92 5.28

Table C14 Cumulative costs and savings for scenarios (£M) Table C15 Cumulative costs and savings for scenarios

(£M)

Policy scenario Efficiency scenario Step change 1 scenario Step change 2 scenario Costs Savings Costs Savings Costs Savings Costs Savings

2001 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 2002 171 28 1265 197 2002 1265 197 1265 197 2003 398 89 2283 543 2003 2283 543 2283 543 2004 584 174 3115 1013 2004 3115 1013 3115 1013 2005 908 307 4001 1620 2005 4001 1620 4001 1620 2006 1703 573 4938 2384 2006 4938 2384 4938 2384 2007 2299 935 5854 3304 2007 5854 3304 5854 3304 2008 2816 1382 6755 4381 2008 6755 4381 6755 4381 2009 3306 1911 7523 5594 2009 7523 5594 7523 5594 2010 3875 2536 8317 6949 2010 8317 6949 8317 6949 2011 4383 3244 9057 8429 2011 9057 8429 9057 8429 2012 4954 4042 9731 10025 2012 9731 10025 9731 10025 2013 5403 4915 10415 11738 2013 10415 11738 10415 11738 2014 5849 5862 11101 13569 2014 11101 13569 11101 13569 2015 6277 6881 11788 15519 2015 11788 15519 11788 15519 2016 6634 7965 12441 17585 2016 12761 17590 12884 17591 2017 7118 9137 13102 19769 2017 13730 19785 14139 19780 2018 7604 10397 13772 22071 2018 14711 22106 15513 22086 2019 8013 11734 14453 24495 2019 15707 24558 16967 24506 2020 8571 13173 15145 27041 2020 16718 27144 18483 27040 2021 8906 14668 15872 29709 2021 17763 29865 20052 29683 2022 9163 16206 16539 32488 2022 18755 32712 21595 32425 2023 9613 17820 17251 35387 2023 19803 35693 23228 35271 2024 9749 19456 17973 38406 2024 20867 38812 24901 38223 2025 9862 21110 18363 41489 2025 21614 42014 26326 41223 2026 10083 22802 18616 44614 2026 22233 45279 27678 44249 2027 10136 24502 18902 47786 2027 22895 48611 29123 47306 2028 10171 26207 19169 51002 2028 23541 52010 30575 50394 2029 10206 27918 19404 54257 2029 24155 55472 31999 53512 2030 10230 29633 19626 57549 2030 24756 58995 33421 56662 2031 10280 31355 19933 60889 2031 25466 62593 35078 59858 2032 10312 33081 20233 64277 2032 26170 66266 36746 63103 2033 10302 34805 20433 67698 2033 26758 69998 38227 66391 2034 10291 36527 20624 71150 2034 27333 73789 39685 69726 2035 10255 38244 20752 74624 2035 27832 77630 40997 73107 2036 10207 39953 20843 78115 2036 28284 81515 42203 76535 2037 10159 41655 20924 81621 2037 28717 85444 43352 80016 2038 10122 43351 21020 85144 2038 29164 89417 44502 83554 2039 10105 45045 21160 88691 2039 29656 93443 45718 87160 2040 10093 46737 21301 92263 2040 30146 97522 46906 90838 2041 10081 48427 21404 95853 2041 30570 101647 47919 94588 2042 10051 50114 21480 99458 2042 30965 105815 48867 98409 2043 10025 51796 21557 103077 2043 31353 110024 49774 102302 2044 10002 53476 21635 106711 2044 31735 114275 50642 106271 2045 9983 55154 21713 110360 2045 32109 118567 51471 110316 2046 9968 56829 21792 114024 2046 32477 122900 52261 114437 2047 9956 58504 21871 117703 2047 32836 127274 53014 118635 2048 9948 60177 21950 121397 2048 33188 131689 53731 122910 2049 9942 61851 21972 125097 2049 33479 136134 54391 127250 2050 9939 63525 21683 128749 2050 33470 140556 54726 131603

reducing carbon emissions housing v3projects.bre.co.uk/pdf_files/reducingcarbonemissions... ·...

Documents